18
" I had to think about this message for a few days to get clear on my own response. I don’t think that anything you say here is wrong or overstated or unusual. Many people find themselves needing assistance and support because of bad decisions repeated over a lifetime. Many people program shop. Many people abuse the system. Many people misdirect resources. Many people don’t try to improve their circumstances. Here’s my perspective: I choose not to think about this. The reality is that these same bad decisions, abuses of the system, etc., can happen regardless of the structure of the system. And I have made a really deliberate choice in my life to prioritize grace over fairness. That’s not the right decision for everyone, and I’m not saying that my personal preferences always make sound policy. But this is where I am. I choose grace. So even though many people create their own circumstances (some over and over and over again), I want them to have a place to live and food to eat and the opportunity to live with more ease even if they will likely blow that opportunity. I choose not to think about cigarettes or televisions or iPhones or how hard someone works compared to how hard I work. That search for justice makes me miserable and gets me nowhere. I can’t control anyone’s choices, motivation, or path, and I certainly don’t think government can. That’s why I’m leaning more toward universal basic income. Let’s dismantle the layers of administrators designed to essentially control people and just provide them with charity and the opportunity to later repay that charity by contributing to the system. Again, this is in no way a criticism of your position, which is valid and one I understand. This is just where I am. 19 "
― Sarah Stewart Holland , I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening): A Guide to Grace-Filled Political Conversations
19
" In 1968, elementary school teacher Jane Elliott conducted a famous experiment with her students in the days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She divided the class by eye color. The brown-eyed children were told they were better. They were the “in-group.” The blue-eyed children were told they were less than the brown-eyed children—hence becoming the “out-group.” Suddenly, former classmates who had once played happily side by side were taunting and torturing one another on the playground. Lest we assign greater morality to the “out-group,” the blue-eyed children were just as quick to attack the brown-eyed children once the roles were reversed.6 Since Elliott’s experiment, researchers have conducted thousands of studies to understand the in-group/out-group response. Now, with fMRI scans, these researchers can actually see which parts of our brains fire up when perceiving a member of an out-group. In a phenomenon called the out-group homogeneity effect, we are more likely to see members of our groups as unique and individually motivated—and more likely to see a member of the out-group as the same as everyone else in that group. When we encounter this out-group member, our amygdala—the part of our brain that processes anger and fear—is more likely to become active. The more we perceive this person outside our group as a threat, the more willing we are to treat them badly. "
― Sarah Stewart Holland , I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening): A Guide to Grace-Filled Political Conversations
