A woman has been raped. Everyone knows the name of the assailant: Brock Turner. And the discussion following has been touching and shocking all at the same time.

What follows are my thoughts about what I have seen online.

In case anything I write below creates a doubt, and I wouldn't write that unless I have seen some serious grandstanding and moralizing (and un-friendings) going on, lets establish some of my positions:

Brock Turner is a rapist and he should be going to prison for as long as the law permits.
The fact that the victim got so drunk that she became unconscious doesn't justify any part of his despicable action, no matter how many minutes were involved.
The Victim deserves no shame at all for what happened.

Okay... let's talk about this.

A Measured Voice

One voice that is measured is the voice of the victim, who has elected not to have her name splattered all over the media. I respect that decision. I'll humanize her by calling her "Victoria".

I have read the full text of Victoria's statement to the court and to her assailant. I was moved by its graphic visuals of the scene in the hospital following her shocking awakening to discover that her head was strapped to a gurney and she had no idea where she was or why she had pine needles in her hair. What followed was the alienating indignity of having her body further probed for documentation.

And as if all of that isn't enough, she has to deal with the aftermath of all of this in her head. And she has to figure out how to continue living her life without breaking down and without flying into a rage. And she and her boyfriend have to deal with an alien new reality.

When it comes down to it, there is no price that can be paid to settle this debt by the rapist, Brock Turner. There's no way to get square again. And frankly, he owes her a serious apology and one that is not diluted by the long filibuster that is in his full statement.

What You Are Not Permitted to Mention

I read the Victoria's statement and I think I "get it". I think she used every bit of her will to summon love in her heart to have written so patiently. I am moved and inspired to the full possibilities of the best version of myself.

But then I open the BookFace and I find I am assaulted repeatedly by reposts and words from people I know which seek to impose constraints upon what we are allowed to say aloud and what certain words mean. It's feels like I am being shouted down when I haven't even said anything.

And the conclusion I am left with is that I am someone who doesn't "get it".

We are apparently not allowed to talk about how it is inadvisable to get drunk. Don't even think about it, the assailant named it as the primary contributing factor for him. The fact of a woman being drunk, even to the point of passing out, is not justification for rape, says practically everyone knowing fully that they have the truth on their side.

I don't disagree but that doesn't mean we aren't talking past one another here. If we consider the many factors that are ingredients in this terrible, horrible, unspeakable incident there are two that things that specific people could have done differently that would have changed the situation:

Brock Turner could have acted like a gentleman
Victoria could have consumed less (or no) inebriating substance

One might be tempted to make the case that I am a heartless and cruel human being who is giving moral shelter to the assailant and re-victimizing the victim if I mention the second point.

But if there are multiple factors that could have been changed to nudge the situation, why not permit ourselves to reconsider them all? After all, any incident is a function of its contributing factors.

This is an idea that is hammered in motorcycle safety class. They present to you multiple scenarios where a crash occurs, and in each one you are required to identify the reasons a crash occurred. The object lesson is that most crashes happen because of a complex of reasons and rarely because of one single cause.

I think we are doing a disservice to Victoria and to this entire discussion if we choose to ignore that "opportunity" is a contributing factor to crime. And the rapist Brock Turner would have had much less opportunity when faced with a sober woman with her full wits about her, resisting with everything she had.

I wish so much for her that she could have resisted. And for this reason, I wish that people didn't drink when they party.

I don't think it justifies Brock Turner's act of rape to say that. I don't think it has to mean that we hold him with any less blame.

AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN!!!!!

But as you can see, I have to speak very carefully in order to say that.

There is something going on in the broader culture around rape. I would call it a campaign to educate except for the sensation of being SHOUTED DOWN BY PEOPLE YELLING AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS!!!

From what I can gather, the shouting is way of reacting meaningfully in the aftermath of a senseless tragedy that we do not wish to compound by minimizing the victim's choices as well. The shouting is a ham-fisted attempt at unequivocal expression of solidarity with Victoria and vocal opposition to the tendency to blame the victim and to show them less support than they deserve.

I think the motivation is noble but the methods are off-putting.

It feels to me like we are trying so hard to control the thoughts of the people around us. We are telling the others around us what to think, and in what exact words. And more importantly, we are making decisions about what must NEVER be thought or said following a rape incident and that we will bring shame down upon anyone who dares to use the forbidden words.

Well, I have to be honest: I shut down when I read words that come on too strong with the thought policing and shaming. And I don't feel good about these interactions. I think that online discussion has the capacity to make us better when we are able to put our ideas together. But it's not the case when faced with this ugly feeling of being shouted down. It isn't the online experience I want to have and it's probably not what you're after either.

Well... Part of the beauty of our age is that we each have our own space to write what we notice. We all have the chance to write the Internet we would like to read. And, hopefully I have written this without shouting and without giving moral cover to Turner.

Speaking Softly

Please take this to heart: When we say things softly and with a heart full of love, we can trust that we will be heard.

We have a term for the experience of reading or hearing something that makes sense: it "resonates". I like to visualize the words echoing softly in the heart and mind of the reader/listener.

We can choose unilateral disarmament. We can choose to speak softly and trust the echoes to make sensible new ideas a part of the way we think and live. And maybe if we do this consistently, we will finally get to have the online experience we desire: sharing ideas, connecting people, and changing things for the better.

To Victoria

I hear you. I am so sorry for what has happened to you. And, I hope you know that you have touched me with your strength and your compassion.

You are connecting people and changing things for the better. Thank you.

From James Altucher Podcast - Ep. 62 at about 52 minutes or so.

During this podcast, Tony Robbins opines about things that hold us back from effectively influencing others and the necessary preconditions. I transcribed it below.

What does it take for any of us to be effective?

We have to be able to influence people that don’t think like us.

If you only influence people who think like you do, then you divide yourself (…your company, your family, your nation) in half. And it doesn’t matter if you think you’re right or not. Even if you are right… We have to… You know one of the things I’ve learned about the most effective communicators on Earth is they’ve been able to enter other peoples worlds… better than other people.

And so you can’t influence somebody if you don’t know what already influences them and you can’t influence somebody when you’re judging them. And so I think that’s one of the challenges, not only for our president, but for both parties right now. We’ve become so polarized…

…it used to be people would fight like hell and they’d go have a beer together. Now they fight like hell and that’s all they do…

What follows are my own thoughts and notes on influence.

Hornet’s Nests

There’s definitely evidence of this divisive dynamic all over social media. You don’t have to search very hard to find a “hornet’s nest” post on Facebook. A hornet’s nest post begins with a person posting something they feel strongly about. (And I love when people are passionate about things…) But what happens a lot of the time is that the post is written as an unconstructive tirade that doesn’t promote discussion oversimplifies things and paints as immoral or ignorant those that dissent. These are posts that were made for the Like button and not for the comments box.

The only people who will want to discuss will be a number of people will feel mischaracterized or demonized or worse. They will feel defensive. And they may respond with venom or with attempts at discussion but even when the original poster and the commenting dissenter are able to have a civil discussion, there’s a good chance that some inflammatory troll will try to shut things down with a moral oversimplification. (We all have that one “friend” or relative.)

We have to choose influence with integrity over “being right”.

I truly believe we all want to be effective people. If you were convinced by Tony Robbins, as I was, that you can only do so by being able to influence people who don’t already think like you do, then we have some work to do to avoid falling into the easy trap of using moral bludgeons and putting more hornet’s nests into the world. If your intent is to “write the internet you would want to read”, I would have to consider this a failure.

Who won’t I influence?

This one is a personal choice. I try to only engage with thinking people because I don’t care to keep people in my life who are drama-laden. If I have reasons to deem that a particular person is irrational, immoral, or ignorant… I’m more likely to try not to have anything to do with that person than to try to influence them.

As Tim Ferris says, you can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

When is it appropriate to try to influence somebody?

For it to be worth the time of all invoved, we should choose to attempt influence only when think that a person’s life (or the lives of those around them) would be dramatically improved if they changed an idea, started doing something, or stopped doing something. The intent has to purely come from an interest in their well-being and we should plan to let it go if they are not receptive to suggestions..

In what manner is it appropriate to try to influence somebody?

Style matters a lot here, especially on social media, because attention spans are barely-there and, because of the mix of content types, people will not be reading things closely on the first go. So… it is critically important to be brief, clear, and nonjudgmental.

We must avoid the use of blame and shame. I want the reader’s thinking brain chewing on some “food for thought”. I don’t want them defensively crafting the perfect response to what they perceive as an attack.

We must only appeal to the best within people: Their reason and their desire to do and be better than they are today. They can have their fears manipulated by the news with a push of a button. That won’t come from me.

Blog: Ideas and Living