Building the Conversation

It's not modeled, right. We often talk about diplomacy as we refer to our actions abroad, but we're not talking about how the two parties, Democrats and Republicans come to the table. But we're also not talking about how we have uncomfortable conversations ones that you know, we may not come to an agreement at the end, but it gets

us somewhere. It has us understand each other better. And at a time when our country is becoming increasingly polarized by the millisecond, it's really important for us to start to figure out, well, what do we do next? If you have the Republican Party, for instance, that has decided through the RNC that a coup attempt is normal political discourse and so they're not going to pay attention to

anything moving forward if that's their thing. And then you have democrats believing that what they can offer is just you know, sympathy, empathy. Let me try and be your best friend from across the aisle. Let me flatter you with talking about what an honorable person you are. And if that doesn't work, then what will? And I think oftentimes we actually place too much responsibility on our representatives, on celebrities, on people that are bigger than we are,

because we think that they should be better. But the fact is, have you seen anybody over the course of the last two years, four years, five years for that matter, showcasing modeling for the world how we engage in difficult conversation. No, what we are seeing is just if white people are uncomfortable, then we need to shut down every bit of conversation that has to do with America's real origination story, right,

real origin story. That if white people are uncomfortable with trans children playing on sports teams, then we need to eliminate trans kids from being able to play on sports teams. That instead of us figuring out how we get to some place of mutual respect, mutual understanding, that we have

just decided to just give up. And what's really important right now, I think in this conversation that Jonathan and I have to sided to engage in, frankly, is modeling what isn't being taught right and how we come to the table. And I'm not saying that this is going to work with people who don't believe in reason, right who don't want to have reasonable conversation, or really that you don't want to engage in in conversation with them.

But at the end of the day, if we're going to coexist in society, then we are going to have to find a way to get through to one another. It isn't your you know, the rabbit of right wing isn't going to be able to lock up silence every single person in this country that is a dissenter. I know that that is what they would like to do, and that is their you know, neo nazi, fascist, you

know fantasy, But that's not going to happen. On my side, the progressive side, I'm coming to the realization that we're never going to eradicate white supremacy, that it is too embedded in the fabric and the function of this society that we need to instead of having conversations about eradication, right, that there needs to be more conversation around education and

what it means to protect ourselves. And I don't mean just the talk that black parents and brown parents need to have with their young children in order to make sure that they stay safe in school and stay safe on the streets, and stay safe while they're driving from white predators, whether they have a badge or not. That there needs to be more than that, right, And so we are living in really precarious, frustrating, aggressive, polarizing, exhausting times.

Giving up isn't an option, right, So then what do we do? So my conversation today coming up next with Jonathan, we're going to attle right how you have conversations. He's going to offer one tactic right that you all can practice this week, this weekend, whether it be with family members, your significant others, children, your boss, your colleagues, and figuring out how we move past stalemate situations or the desire to just be right right and get to a better place.

And I can offer this. You know, before I was divorced, my ex wife and I also went through couples therapy and this was years prior to the divorce taking place, and I found it helpful. I found the techniques helpful not only in hearing her, but also being able to apply those couple therapy tactics in terms of mirroring what

people are saying. Am I getting this right? Allowing people to speak for uninterrupted, really listening, not listening for a retort, but listening so that then you can mirror back and reflect back what you think you heard the person say, and then allow them the ability to be able to say, no, that actually isn't what I said. What I said was X, and then again going back, Okay, I'm absorbing that is this is what I heard you say? Is this correct? Yes? Okay?

And then you move from there and you build the conversation from there. And I found it very helpful to use not only in my personal life outside of the confines of my marriage, but also in my professional life, because at the end of the day, what is it that people really want? What do humans want? We want to know that we are heard, We want to know that we are seen, We want to know that we

are valued. Right, those are like the three basics that if you can get to that place, like when we talk about equity, when we talk about creating space at the table for other people's voices. It is because people of color, black people, Latin X people, Asian, the Pacific Islanders folks, API folks, we have been invisibilized right from the American story. We have been invisibilized from the narrative, and that is mirrored back to us in the content

that we consume on a myriad of platforms. Also coming down from Hollywood, who is the leading part, who is the leading man, quote unquote, who's the leading woman, quote unquote, who is labeled the sexiest person alive, the most beautiful? We have started to see bits and pieces of progress, right like we saw in our politics with the election of Obama, but then the regression and the backlash that we're experiencing now. To hearken back to Jim Crow years, it's the same thing that we see in a in

an aesthetic way. Years ago, we were having a conversation around the Oscars thanks to April Rain tweeting out hashtag oscar so White for the Academy to have some self examination as to what it is that they are awarding, right like, who is judging, who is doing the judging, what does the criteria look like, and then come to find out that, of course a majority of the form press, the Foreign Association are white men above the age of

sixty years old. So you think that they're going to be looking at black and brown content creators, directors, producers, artists and saying that they value that. No, they're fucking not so there. Sometimes it is necessary for us to do a call out right, to call attention to how discrimination works, right, how invisibilizing groups of people work, how

gaslighting works. But then there are other times when we want to do a call in where we want to bring people to the table to be able to have to raise consciousness, to also raise vibrational levels right, so that we can get to a place where I don't want to just assume the worst out of you. But I also need you, whether you are a voting member of the Academy, whether you are a jobs recruiter or a college recruiter, I need you to be a lot

more intentional. I need you to create rubrics and to create a more expanded idea of what acceptance right looks like and recognize that there is value in diversity, not just for the quote unquote aesthetic of rainbowing things up right on its face, but not creating the scaffolding and the culture that will support diverse people and voices and perspectives. Because again, what is it that people want, regardless of

their race, ethnicity, religion, orientation, gender identity, and beyond. They want to be seen, they want to be heard, and they want to be valued. Right, So can we agree to those three things, and then can we then have open debate and conversation about the ways in which we have set up a society that disallows those diverse voices to have the same effect, weight, and engagement in our

mainstream discourse, regardless of what the topics are. So I feel that in you, in these conversations that Jonathan and I are having now and are hoping to model for all of you, that instead of just marinating in the misery, instead of just ticking off the latest headlines of things that are wrong, that what we are beginning to realize is that at the core of what is wrong is

our lack of communication with one another. And then when they are added in forces that are at play that are working purposefully to keep everyone isolated, angry, and operating on one hundred and above right, that there is monetary value in that, right, that people are making money off of your rage, making money off of your pain and

your grief. Right, those are real conversations to be had because you know, Jonathan will say in our interview that the algorithm is the algorithms that we are all confined within, whether you're using Facebook or Instagram or TikTok or what have you. The algorithms are set up so that the anger you become, right, the more that you're seeing content that subscribes to that emotion. That that's what keeps people on the devices, on the platforms and readily engaged. And

there is no desire to offer proof to something else. Right, So I think that, folks, it's really truly important for us to recognize that we are trapped in a cycle of trauma, right, that living in America these days, the past half a decade has been incredibly fucking traumatizing, and that there is no pressure that is being released. It is just continuing to circulate and grow and grow and

grow and metastasize. And so if our leaders, right, if our representatives are not going to model good behavior, are not going to model appropriate discourse, discourse that moves us through, not around issues right, not pretending that everything is is willy nilly and perfect, but that actually seeks to expand our understanding and move us through. If that's not being modeled, then we need to figure out what else it is

that we are going to do. Because things are not going to get better by us pretending that they are better. They're not going to get better by us banning our

way to neutrality. So what else is there? And I think that these are going to be increasingly important conversations that Jonathan and I are going to be having, and we will bring other people in to the conversation to see how these tactics can actually work in the political sphere, and hopefully we can begin in this small way to start to offer solutions rather than just teasing out more of the problems. So that's something that I am excited

about and I'm looking forward to. And after you listen to this week's Woke Wednesday interview with Jonathan, do tell me in the comments section about whether or not you think that these tactics will or will not work if you're open to trying them, and then sharing whether you DM me or tweet at both Jonathan and I or sharing the comment section again with others about trying some of these things out and seeing how they land, and again giving ourselves some grace and those around us to

understanding this is not a a quick fix, right. This actually requires a lot more work and intentionality on all of our parts. And I think that that is an important space for us to be in and to consider to be in, because if we don't start taking these issues, these problems that we're facing, bit by bit, if we're not making them bite size, then we're going to choke, right, and it's just going to feel like too much. So, folks, coming up next is my conversation with our friend woke

Wednesday guest doctor Jonathan Metzel. Folks, you know that whenever we have the opportunity to talk with our in house doctor every single week, doctor Jonathan Metzel, we are always

very excited and appreciative of your time. You know, last week, Jonathan, I was really I left our conversation feeling really good, which has not been the case when we are always going down the rabbit hole of you know, really emotionally charged topics like gun violence, like COVID, and so I wanted to pick up on where we left off last week, when we're talking about conversation and the art of conversation and how the point is like, if we're let's say

we're talking about foreign affairs in the United States, we are talking about diplomacy, Where does diplomacy come from? It comes from conversation? Last week at the end of at the end of last week, you had the Republican the Republican Party issue a proclamation through the RNC that said that January sixth, according to them, was normal political discourse. Right.

So if that is what we are dealing with, right, a party that believes that breaking into the Capitol building, harming people violence is normal political discourse, how do we get back? How do we even engage Jonathan in a way where we are going to talk to one another when this is what they are identifying as the norm.

What I liked about our conversation last week was that we used couple's therapy as a metaphor, which I think is a useful metaphor because a lot of times in couples therapy, what you learn is instead of somebody says something that you don't agree with, and instead of saying I don't agree with that you say, let me hear, let me hear what I let let me try to articulate what I hear you saying, or you know that

you're not talking somebody out of something they're saying. Instead, you're trying to say, let me see if I can understand why you feel that way, Let me see if I can articulate that. Tell me if I get this right. And that's kind of the basis of conflict negotiation related conversation a lot of times is the idea that you can basically acknowledge somebody else's point of view, even if it's something you completely don't agree with. At least the starter is like, yeah, you know, tell me more, Tell

me more about why you don't trust modern medicine. Tell me why you think something I mean, think of someone you.

Tell me why you think ivermectin might be helpful, like something we just you know, wouldn't maybe not agree with automatically, but but instead we get into this point where we're doing exactly a thing you're not supposed to do in couples therapy, which is you talk you try to talk somebody out of, try to talk somebody out of a position that they feel really deeply about and when you think about like the frameworks in which American political discourse happens,

or just everyday discourse, how many places are there where you can even have that kind of conversation, which is really hard conversation. The whole the whole world is set up to not have that conversation. So Twitter now has a down button where you can just block out conversations that you find disagreeable. Schools on many sides are trying to eliminate content they find um, you know, um um displeasure, yeah,

and so um and so um you know. So in a way, we're losing the skill set to do that, right, I mean so in a way. Part of the issue is how can you recreate just the structure of the framework of those conversations and where is it that that kind of conversation is even possible right now? And the other hand, there is there are huge financial interests in making it seem like we're so different that we could

never talk to each other. So the algorithms on Twitter that monetize hate and disagreement and discord, for example, don't want us to be saying, oh, I can see like oh I'm a democrat, but I can see how Republicans have some good points or gosh, maybe we were you know, maybe let's think about the mask mandates or the lockdowns. You know, maybe there was a better way to do that or something like that. Let's have a conversation about that.

But when but when the all the money and the power is going towards the extremes, it's hard to do that. So you really have to almost check your your responses, right, because there are things that we just automatically when politics becomes identity, we just have an automatic peptic response to like this is our tribe and that's their tribe and

stuff like that. So I think step one, you know, thinking of the famous psychiatric joke is the light bulb has to want to change, or you know, something like that. And I don't know if we're there yet, but I would say step one is to reimagine the structures in which we can even have conversations, because there's no room to understand different points of view, and to be honest, a lot of points that we don't agree with. I mean, the other issue is disagreeing with somebody a different point

of view is not automatically fatal. But that's the way it feels right now, given the high stakes of politics and the ways people are pushed, So how do you work back from that? But I think that's that's number one, is actually thinking about that framework of how can we have that conversation where we can say and then I just think for me for myself, like, think of all the times I've not had that response about masks, about vaccines,

about everything else. Like, so we end up getting pushed into defending very very extreme positions in response to these provocations. But that's you know, the descantises of the world, that's what they want, like, they want us to seem so polarized. And so I guess the point I'm trying to make is we need a strategy for polarization itself that actually

sees ending polarization as the end goal. But it's hard because we're in a winner take all, zero sum political system where the stakes of even trying to compromise or are really high. You've said a couple of things that I that I want to unpack, and so what So one the first thing is, Jennathan, let's talk about couples therapy, right, and the premise of couples therapy because what I think that what I think is important here is that the premise of couples therapy isn't for one side to win, right.

The goal of couples therapy is not two people deciding that they're going to go in and then one of them is going to leave and they're going to be right, what is the goal of couples like, tell us what is the goal of that type of mirroring in terms of, Oh, I see what you're you know what I hear you trying to say? Because these are like, these are important tools that unless you go to couples therapy, you're actually not being taught in any type of way to have

constructive conversations, right. And but the funny thing is is that conversation is the foundation of every relationship, right, whether it is romantic or platonic, intimate, you know, levels of intimacy or not. It's a foundation of everything. And so what is the goal when you're entering and you're learning

that type of mirroring and constructive conversation. Well, it's interesting I'm a spokespersoner for this, like as a single American, right, But I will say that I in my training, I learned a lot of useful principles that hopefully we'll be useful for somebody else or maybe me at some other point in my life. But I would say that I think one of the base, one of the most important concepts is that when people feel discounted, they escalate. And

I think that's the main thing. Is when somebody feels dismissed, they escalate, and then it pushes them into more extreme positions. And so the trick is to hear somebody else right, even if you don't agree with what they're saying, you gain so much by acknowledging their perspective because in a way it lets them then say, okay, well I agree with this, I don't agree with this. Where think of all the times that we say, man, that's dumb or I disagree or whatever. It's hard because in the heat

of the moment, as we know, it's super hard. But the main concept is instead of automatic dismissal, which pushes into these polarization moments. I was saying before, my favorite exercise from this, which I think is also a useful political political political size is two people sit down at the end of a day. One person speaks about discomfort. Oh my god, let's not have any discomfort, um, but whatever,

something that's on their minds, something that's bothered them. They speak for five minutes the other person and it can be very critical and can be whatever the other person instead of trying to you can never try to talk to that person out of it. The other person says, let me hear let me let me repeat for three minutes what I hear what I think you said. Let me here's my understanding of what I think you said. Tell me if I got this right. I hear you

saying blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And then you try to only sly genuinely, because almost having their perspective come out of your mouth is a kind of empathy building exercise. And then the person can then respond and say, Okay, there's this, there's this. Then the other person does the exact same thing, and then you think about ways to kind of resolve it. So that's kind of standard conflict resolution is let me, let me, let me tell you what I think I hear you saying.

In a way. No, it's hard when when when the when the goal is provocation, I mean, you know, the when the goals provocation, the goal is to not have those kind of conversations, is to have people have automatic knee jerk responses. I mean, there's no one better at

circumventing this process than Trump. I mean, if you I was thinking about it this morning, like Trump saw a guy on TV talking about a critique of critical race theory, and in his like lizard brain, he realized, Oh, here's the wedge issue that we're going to fight this fight on. So Trump called the anti CRT guy to wherever his dungeon, and um, and that's what, that's what, that's what started this whole thing. And so he kind of has a nose for picking out the thing that makes the other

person the most defensive. Um. And so in a way, the issues that were being fed on a plate are the ones that are that are the ones that are that are not make it the hardest to have those conversations. But I still think the skill set is the same in a way. You know, I still think that the skill set the minute they say we're against CRT and our fight is what we're defending CRT, we're already on

their terrain in a way, and even and vice versa. Also, so again I just think we're on terrain where these kind of conversations are really difficult. But I can say, I mean, I would invite all of our listeners across the country and across the globe to try that out for a week and just see how it leads to different endpoints, and believe it or not, it actually works

in many cases, you know. So one of the things that I want to ask you too, So you say, right, you open up and you say, like, people want to be heard, right, They want to feel like what they are saying matters. No one wants to be invisibilized, right, and yet Jonathan, and they want to have their feelings centered in some type of way. Let me offer like my calculus here, which is that all that we've ever centered in this country is white people's feelings and white

people's needs. Right, And so it is mirrored back to you via Hollywood, It's mirrored back to you via cable news. You know, it's mirrored back to you in terms of, oh, we have to go and talk to the blue collar voter, or let's understand the Trump voter. Nobody ever wanted to I don't think that anybody has ever wanted to understand a democratic voter or ever wanted to understand a black voter or a lat To next voter. But we create

these dynamics to have these town halls. We look for reasons to say why white people are aggrieved, to point to anything other than racism, right when we know that that's actually the reason. And so my question is if the if we know those things to be true, then how is it that we have dialogue with people who I believe their narrative is already centered? Right, their story

is all ready told over and over again. So how do you come to a place where one person, right, black and brown people and folks from other marginalized communities have never had their story, their narrative anything ever centered. And that's the moment that we're in right now, why we're seeing so much pushback. And yet you have this group over here that's just like, oh well, what about me and like and my white tears? How do you like?

And I say, I'm being flippant, but you you get what I'm saying, Like, everybody wants to be heard, but there's one group that has always historically been centered and heard. How do you move past that? Is? What is your advice? I should say in or the steps in how we would begin to move to move through that. I don't want to say move past it, but actually attempt to

move through that. Well, let me let me ask a question first, which is, when I was talking about the couple's therapy stuff, did you assume that I was talking about sensitive white people. No, but that's where I wanted to go. Yeah, because I actually think so. I think there are two ways to answer that question. One is, I actually think it's a it's a good political strategy. Right if they provoke on critical race theory and we fight back defending critical race theory, all of a sudden,

we're on their ground. And so from a political standpoint, even if you don't, I just think that from as a strategic standpoint to it. It's also we get into these fights where we're just discounting what people are saying and we're always playing defense. And so I think in part what I'm trying to say is not just about

interpersonal dams. It's also like thinking about a political way to fight back that is in part about imagine you're not trying to defeat the other side, you're trying to sell them a used car or something like that, which right now is very valuable. You would kind of try to understand what motivates them and then articulate back what motivates them in ways that makes them feel less defensive and things like that, and we don't we don't do

that politically very often. I would say, Now, of course, this whole conversation is about inequity, and certainly I feel like the people who have the most to learn. I'm not actually talking about protecting the feelings of white Americans, although I think there are a lot of people. I mean, my own book, Dying of Whiteness was critical of like

the empathy approach of let's just touch people's feelings. That's not what I'm saying, But I will say that if if this is a skill that like mainstream white America could learn, this would also be a great a great moment. Like I just wrote a book. I just wrote the forward for this great book, Viral Underclass that's going to come out next year, that talked about inequity during the pandemic.

And one of the points I was making during the pen during that was when when COVID first hit um, it was really clear that that the pandemic was exacerbating pre existing in equity, and the people who were the most at risk were the people who were the most at risk the week before the pandemic hit. Also, and as we as we recognize that black and Hispanic people were dying from COVID UM, what if the answer of

white America would have been, we are dying. Americans are dying, and we need to tell us what we can do to help better so that we are all safer. Something like that, like something that was an inclusive narrative, tell us what we can do to make this better so that we can all be safer. If Trump would have even I mean it's unimaginable mouth those words, he would still leave president, you know, and not to do all these kind of things. So in other words, like polarization

feels natural, but it's such the wrong response. Imagine if if at that time it would have been, like, man, I'm acknowledging that, you know, in the first two months of covid people who are who can't social distance and can't um can't do other things like they So I just I just think that the role of empathy and political discourse like that would actually be much more effective

in a particular way. So that's kind of a long and rambling point except to say that I think it's just a I mean, part of this exercise is to recognize just how acutely we go right into the polarizing narrative. But I do think ultimately this is a skill White America needs to learn. So tell me. You said folks should go home and try this this this week. What are some of the things. What are some of the redirects that we can offer that folks can practice in

conversation with their loved ones, their bosses, whomever. That would help. That would not be about getting to a right or wrong, but getting into more conversations. So what are some of those phrases? Well, one thing would be like, let me let me tell you what I think I hear you saying, and tell me if I'm getting this wrong. Something like that, like I'm taking seriously what you're saying. Let me let me just tell you what I hear you saying, and you can tell me if I'm getting this right or not.

What I hear you saying is and then be honest, like I hear you saying that you think vaccines are ineffective and they haven't been effectively tested, and we should have more testing to keep the country safe, but not rush out there in mandate a vaccine for everybody, but instead, you know, something like I'm just giving an example I agree with, but but you know you don't have to use like mandate or anti vax or something like that.

But I think that I think for me, the most useful one is let me let me tell you what I I think I hear you saying, and tell me if I'm if I'm getting this wrong, and then let the person respond after you articulate that. To me, that's better. I mean there are ways. They're kind of like very ineffective ways of doing this, Like I've heard people who aren't good at it say stuff like thank you for sharing that, and like, you know, you want to hit that person in the half of a frying pan because

that's like you condescending a hole. Um. But I think if you, if you can, just if you can start with let me let me tell you what I think I hear you saying, and tell me if I if I if I'm getting that wrong. What you're doing is number one, you're taking it seriously enough to think about it and articulate it, and then you're also giving that other person editorial leeway to correct you. And so those

are two important moves to try to de escalate. And again it doesn't I mean sometimes you just disagree about things, sure, but I mean this is that is a really you know, it is a helpful tool. It is a It is a helpful way to just try it out and see if you if you continue to hit a wall or if it if it opens up a different avenue for

there to be more conversation, more understanding. And I think that if folks were to attempt to try that again with your family, your friends, your boss, you know, your colleague that you may be having a difficult time with, I think that you may find that you you get to a more agreeable or amenable place. I won't say agreeable, but you may get to a more amenable place. I mean, you can try it on social media also, you know, it's um like think about the places that are the

most polarized. Um, you know, it's fun. Like I put up some snark this morning. It was really gratifying to get like five hundred people who retweeted and liked my snark. Like we live on it, We live in a snark. We were living on snark and shade fumes right now when we agree when we try it, but I mean try it on social media also, like um, instead of doing their stupid disagree button that just started today. UM, Like try that. Tried that with disagreeable opinions and see

where you know. I think there's a there's a new framework for new algorithms that I think we're just not considering. And I think we're in a really bad place because we're so radically, we're so radically losing the ability to talk to each other and it's getting to a point

of ridiculousness. I mean, I was saying this morning, like when you're when you're trying to ban things that make people uncomfortable, like what Florida is doing right now in the schools, like you actually lose the ability to talk about discomfort. And I was just thinking, like I went to medical school, Like part of the goal as a doctor is you walk into the rooms of all different kinds of patients and you were talking about all different

kinds of really complex life issues. And if you can't talk about discomfort, about a diagnosis, about a treatment, about you know, social class or race, or anything like that, you really you're going to be a really shitty doctor. And that's true for a lot of different things. And so in a way, what they're trying to do is like ratchet it up by by making it hard to

talk about discomfort. And I think in a way we need to embrace, like what are the ways to talk about discomfort in a way that is enabling and not canceling. I think that's really where we should be going. Jonathan, as always, this is a very enlightening conversation and I love these and I look forward to continuing more. And Folks, if you do try out some of the tactics that Jonathan has offered up today, let me know in the

comment section or on social media. You can get at the both of us and find us on Twitter and let us know if and how it is working for you. Jonathan as always, appreciate you, thank you, and I one last thing I want to say about this is, you know, they're the divisions, like right now, the divisions are like Republican or Democrat. But as things fracture, then it's like

dividing among us right in a way. And so these things kind of fractured down so fighting back against divisiveness and discord and polarization is going to become a skill that's going to become even more important as the stakes get higher. So I think it's super important that we have these conversations. Fantastic, thank you, so as I'm going to be doing, dear friends at the end of each and every show, just allowing us some space and some

time to reflect. There is a group that I follow, and I've discussed them before on here called the NAP Ministry that was begun by visual artist and um and minister right in many ways, uh Tricia Hershey, black woman who has realized the radical nature of black people reclaiming rest right and moving outside of this grind culture and right now on her instagram, uh, the NAP Ministry um and and she is a person that has done, you know, years of research in this field, and you know, in

seminary on her Instagram she lays out for new people that are following her now about her own rest practice and why it is important and that within this space that we allow ourselves to nap, that we open up our dream portal. They were actually able to create and just imagine and rest rest our minds, rest our bodies right, and that while she has created this ministry based on her research, that she did not create this platform as

a space to debate. And she offered something that I thought was really important, particularly for me, right, a person that uses social media as a way. Initially it was supposed to be about an exchange of ideas. It wasn't

supposed to be an echo chamber. And she said that she created the Now ministry based on her research and what she has understood over the last twenty years, and that if you don't agree with her, that's fine, go out go create your own create your own ministry, create your own podcast and blog, you know, and build your flock.

But like I'm not here to debate with you, and like you, you know, you believe that because I am a black woman, that you have readily access to me, and that I should show up right to whatever verbal duel that you want to have at any given time

because you're hiding behind a screen. And you know, I think that it is really important for us to remember that we have choices when it comes to how and when and if we choose to engage with people, and that opting out of argument is not running away it's saying that I'd rather use my energy and my resources

and my vibration for something else. Why am I going to waste hours on Twitter or on Instagram going back and forth with what could potentially be a bot and wasting so much energy and expending so much rage and just spinning, spinning, spinning, when frankly I could just opt out, and I said, you know, it really got me thinking

about our very argumentative culture. Now you know me, you come and watch me hopefully on Instagram Live every Wednesday at three thirty pm Eastern when I do Woke Wednesday on Instagram, and it is an opportunity for me to get out my rage and frustration for thirty minutes and a space for you all collectively to build community and to have conversation in real time with like minded people.

And I think that that's important. But then there are times when I get on Twitter where people want to tell me that I'm not woke and you know, I should shut up and this, that and the other thing. And I have moved from the place of feeling like I needed to respond to every single naysayer, whether it's somebody who puts a comment on a piece that I've written at Zora Magazine and they're just like, you're writing

is trash. Well, sure, I could go in and decide to waste and expend energy that I could be using to create, or I could be using to rest and go back and forth with you, But why go write your own piece, Go do your own analysis, create your own following right, her message on the NAP ministry reminded me that it is within my power and within my purview to opt in or opt out of whatever does not serve me. And I think that we all need

those reminders, particularly now. You do not have to respond to that text, return that call, return that tweet, respond to that comment that is going to lead to nowhere. You can instead choose to opt out and that is your power and just say no, which is a complete sentence. So that's a little bit of zen and reset and rest today. We don't have to engage. It is our choice. So remember that as always, dear friends, Power to the people and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.