To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Protesters demonstrate against the Israeli military bombardment of Gaza in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. on October 20, 2023.
We need to make those who are abusing their power uncomfortable. And we need to out-organize them to take away their power to destroy the fabric of our society.
Approximately 1,200 human souls were killed in Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel on Oct 7.
Since that date 30,000 human souls have been massacred by the Israeli Military with bombs paid for by the United States in Gaza.
Hate crimes are increasing against Jews and against Muslims.
The climate crisis is putting millions of people’s lives at risk.
There are wars raging in many countries.
Democracy is in peril in the U.S. and in many other places.
We are living in a time where many of our colleagues in the human community do not feel safe because they are deeply and physically unsafe.
Right now all around this country students are being doxed and losing opportunities for jobs because well-funded organizations are keeping lists of those who speak out against the U.S.-funded Israeli war machine. Teachers who speak out are losing their jobs, and even powerful and prominent people, such as the former president of Harvard Claudine Gay, are losing their jobs.
And yet there is a rhetoric around the idea of safety that is counterproductive to building a world in which we can all be truly safe.
On my campus, I helped organize a teach-in on the Israel/Gaza war and the speakers came from a humanistic perspective that honored the tragedy of lives lost on both sides and which dug into the history and politics of the present moment. I was worried that hecklers would show up, and my colleagues asked that there be campus police presence. We specifically offered for those posing questions to write them on paper so they wouldn’t need to be identified publicly.
But I was told that because our teach-in was sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization dedicated to Palestinian rights and an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, some Jewish students on our campus didn’t feel safe attending.
Many of us live inside bubbles with people who agree with our positions and when something changes to bring us face-to-face with views that disrupt what we have come to accept as common sense, we can find that experience destabilizing.
Many of us feel silenced by worries that our speech might be met with disagreement. We are in a period of increasing self-censorship where people don’t say what they think is important or true because they are afraid of the social consequences—even in cases where those consequences are likely to be quite small. And yet, taking the risk to be honest and to speak out often puts us in more right alignment with the people around us. Speaking truths often strengthens our relationships by making them more authentic.
The dictionary definition of the word "safety" centers on being free from danger. Much of the current discussion of unsafety is really about discomfort. And discomfort is something we should generally lean into. We should reserve the word "safety" for situations where we are in danger of something more than a destabilization of our worldviews.
A lot of people’s sense that it is unsafe to engage in political dialogue comes from the kinds of bad behavior that are routine on social media where people make comments about social and political things and they are then flamed and sometimes “canceled.”
It is important to remember that Facebook and X function exquisitely as profit-making advertising platforms. People’s outrage is the fuel that drives those profits. The platforms are optimized for outrage. It isn’t surprising that people attack one another there. Those attacks fuel attention. People gain clout by how many followers they have and they gain followers by drawing more eyeballs to their posts.
Cancel culture is a practice in social media where people flame each other for clout. Algorithms foster outrage to keep people engaged. Weirdly, social media is such a toxic place precisely because there is generally no real danger there. The personal and real-life stakes are often so low that people feel that they can say anything. There is no point trying to figure out how to have productive humanistic and civil conversations on social media. The algorithms don't allow it. A better strategy might be to avoid commercial social media altogether. We should avoid feeding the trolls. If you are concerned about the toxic nature of social media, rather than jumping into that fray, it is likely to be more productive to work actively for policies to break the monopolies and allow for the proliferation of non-profit forms of social media.
We are living in dangerous times. And It might be tempting in the face of those real attacks to retreat into the comfort of silence. One of the most profound lessons of the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War 2 was that the community’s silence did not protect it.
We can’t expect, in a period of extreme instability and a rising fascist movement in our country, to feel safe all the time. Living ethically in times of crisis requires that at least some of us take risks, and of course the more of us who take risks to speak out and work for justice, the safer we all are. As the great African- American poet and essayist Audre Lourde said: “Your silence will not protect you.”
And while this is a time for speaking out and for bravery, that doesn't mean that our words need to be fighting words. A dangerous and consequential time is also a time for being strategic, for thinking about the most effective ways to speak and to act in relation to the dangers we face.
It is generally a good idea when speaking with people to follow the basic rules of effective civil communication:
But no amount of civil dialogue will stop the forces that are fighting to maintain social power at the expense of the rest of us.
Long before Trump came onto the political scene, Republican legislators had stopped engaging in political compromise. It was very disheartening that the response of liberals was often to wring their hands and call for more civil dialogue. Being civil with those who are bent on your destruction is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Fighting against the rising forces of fascism in this country does not require us to be routinely uncivil, but it does require much more of us than civility. We engage in significant social change when we pressure political systems to change.
We need to step outside of our comfort zones to do that.
We need to make those who are abusing their power uncomfortable. And we need to out-organize them to take away their power to destroy the fabric of our society.
That involves mobilizing social resources to shut down the abuses of power that exist in a wide variety of forms.
Our silence will not protect us, and neither will our civility.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Approximately 1,200 human souls were killed in Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel on Oct 7.
Since that date 30,000 human souls have been massacred by the Israeli Military with bombs paid for by the United States in Gaza.
Hate crimes are increasing against Jews and against Muslims.
The climate crisis is putting millions of people’s lives at risk.
There are wars raging in many countries.
Democracy is in peril in the U.S. and in many other places.
We are living in a time where many of our colleagues in the human community do not feel safe because they are deeply and physically unsafe.
Right now all around this country students are being doxed and losing opportunities for jobs because well-funded organizations are keeping lists of those who speak out against the U.S.-funded Israeli war machine. Teachers who speak out are losing their jobs, and even powerful and prominent people, such as the former president of Harvard Claudine Gay, are losing their jobs.
And yet there is a rhetoric around the idea of safety that is counterproductive to building a world in which we can all be truly safe.
On my campus, I helped organize a teach-in on the Israel/Gaza war and the speakers came from a humanistic perspective that honored the tragedy of lives lost on both sides and which dug into the history and politics of the present moment. I was worried that hecklers would show up, and my colleagues asked that there be campus police presence. We specifically offered for those posing questions to write them on paper so they wouldn’t need to be identified publicly.
But I was told that because our teach-in was sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization dedicated to Palestinian rights and an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, some Jewish students on our campus didn’t feel safe attending.
Many of us live inside bubbles with people who agree with our positions and when something changes to bring us face-to-face with views that disrupt what we have come to accept as common sense, we can find that experience destabilizing.
Many of us feel silenced by worries that our speech might be met with disagreement. We are in a period of increasing self-censorship where people don’t say what they think is important or true because they are afraid of the social consequences—even in cases where those consequences are likely to be quite small. And yet, taking the risk to be honest and to speak out often puts us in more right alignment with the people around us. Speaking truths often strengthens our relationships by making them more authentic.
The dictionary definition of the word "safety" centers on being free from danger. Much of the current discussion of unsafety is really about discomfort. And discomfort is something we should generally lean into. We should reserve the word "safety" for situations where we are in danger of something more than a destabilization of our worldviews.
A lot of people’s sense that it is unsafe to engage in political dialogue comes from the kinds of bad behavior that are routine on social media where people make comments about social and political things and they are then flamed and sometimes “canceled.”
It is important to remember that Facebook and X function exquisitely as profit-making advertising platforms. People’s outrage is the fuel that drives those profits. The platforms are optimized for outrage. It isn’t surprising that people attack one another there. Those attacks fuel attention. People gain clout by how many followers they have and they gain followers by drawing more eyeballs to their posts.
Cancel culture is a practice in social media where people flame each other for clout. Algorithms foster outrage to keep people engaged. Weirdly, social media is such a toxic place precisely because there is generally no real danger there. The personal and real-life stakes are often so low that people feel that they can say anything. There is no point trying to figure out how to have productive humanistic and civil conversations on social media. The algorithms don't allow it. A better strategy might be to avoid commercial social media altogether. We should avoid feeding the trolls. If you are concerned about the toxic nature of social media, rather than jumping into that fray, it is likely to be more productive to work actively for policies to break the monopolies and allow for the proliferation of non-profit forms of social media.
We are living in dangerous times. And It might be tempting in the face of those real attacks to retreat into the comfort of silence. One of the most profound lessons of the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War 2 was that the community’s silence did not protect it.
We can’t expect, in a period of extreme instability and a rising fascist movement in our country, to feel safe all the time. Living ethically in times of crisis requires that at least some of us take risks, and of course the more of us who take risks to speak out and work for justice, the safer we all are. As the great African- American poet and essayist Audre Lourde said: “Your silence will not protect you.”
And while this is a time for speaking out and for bravery, that doesn't mean that our words need to be fighting words. A dangerous and consequential time is also a time for being strategic, for thinking about the most effective ways to speak and to act in relation to the dangers we face.
It is generally a good idea when speaking with people to follow the basic rules of effective civil communication:
But no amount of civil dialogue will stop the forces that are fighting to maintain social power at the expense of the rest of us.
Long before Trump came onto the political scene, Republican legislators had stopped engaging in political compromise. It was very disheartening that the response of liberals was often to wring their hands and call for more civil dialogue. Being civil with those who are bent on your destruction is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Fighting against the rising forces of fascism in this country does not require us to be routinely uncivil, but it does require much more of us than civility. We engage in significant social change when we pressure political systems to change.
We need to step outside of our comfort zones to do that.
We need to make those who are abusing their power uncomfortable. And we need to out-organize them to take away their power to destroy the fabric of our society.
That involves mobilizing social resources to shut down the abuses of power that exist in a wide variety of forms.
Our silence will not protect us, and neither will our civility.
Approximately 1,200 human souls were killed in Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel on Oct 7.
Since that date 30,000 human souls have been massacred by the Israeli Military with bombs paid for by the United States in Gaza.
Hate crimes are increasing against Jews and against Muslims.
The climate crisis is putting millions of people’s lives at risk.
There are wars raging in many countries.
Democracy is in peril in the U.S. and in many other places.
We are living in a time where many of our colleagues in the human community do not feel safe because they are deeply and physically unsafe.
Right now all around this country students are being doxed and losing opportunities for jobs because well-funded organizations are keeping lists of those who speak out against the U.S.-funded Israeli war machine. Teachers who speak out are losing their jobs, and even powerful and prominent people, such as the former president of Harvard Claudine Gay, are losing their jobs.
And yet there is a rhetoric around the idea of safety that is counterproductive to building a world in which we can all be truly safe.
On my campus, I helped organize a teach-in on the Israel/Gaza war and the speakers came from a humanistic perspective that honored the tragedy of lives lost on both sides and which dug into the history and politics of the present moment. I was worried that hecklers would show up, and my colleagues asked that there be campus police presence. We specifically offered for those posing questions to write them on paper so they wouldn’t need to be identified publicly.
But I was told that because our teach-in was sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization dedicated to Palestinian rights and an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, some Jewish students on our campus didn’t feel safe attending.
Many of us live inside bubbles with people who agree with our positions and when something changes to bring us face-to-face with views that disrupt what we have come to accept as common sense, we can find that experience destabilizing.
Many of us feel silenced by worries that our speech might be met with disagreement. We are in a period of increasing self-censorship where people don’t say what they think is important or true because they are afraid of the social consequences—even in cases where those consequences are likely to be quite small. And yet, taking the risk to be honest and to speak out often puts us in more right alignment with the people around us. Speaking truths often strengthens our relationships by making them more authentic.
The dictionary definition of the word "safety" centers on being free from danger. Much of the current discussion of unsafety is really about discomfort. And discomfort is something we should generally lean into. We should reserve the word "safety" for situations where we are in danger of something more than a destabilization of our worldviews.
A lot of people’s sense that it is unsafe to engage in political dialogue comes from the kinds of bad behavior that are routine on social media where people make comments about social and political things and they are then flamed and sometimes “canceled.”
It is important to remember that Facebook and X function exquisitely as profit-making advertising platforms. People’s outrage is the fuel that drives those profits. The platforms are optimized for outrage. It isn’t surprising that people attack one another there. Those attacks fuel attention. People gain clout by how many followers they have and they gain followers by drawing more eyeballs to their posts.
Cancel culture is a practice in social media where people flame each other for clout. Algorithms foster outrage to keep people engaged. Weirdly, social media is such a toxic place precisely because there is generally no real danger there. The personal and real-life stakes are often so low that people feel that they can say anything. There is no point trying to figure out how to have productive humanistic and civil conversations on social media. The algorithms don't allow it. A better strategy might be to avoid commercial social media altogether. We should avoid feeding the trolls. If you are concerned about the toxic nature of social media, rather than jumping into that fray, it is likely to be more productive to work actively for policies to break the monopolies and allow for the proliferation of non-profit forms of social media.
We are living in dangerous times. And It might be tempting in the face of those real attacks to retreat into the comfort of silence. One of the most profound lessons of the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War 2 was that the community’s silence did not protect it.
We can’t expect, in a period of extreme instability and a rising fascist movement in our country, to feel safe all the time. Living ethically in times of crisis requires that at least some of us take risks, and of course the more of us who take risks to speak out and work for justice, the safer we all are. As the great African- American poet and essayist Audre Lourde said: “Your silence will not protect you.”
And while this is a time for speaking out and for bravery, that doesn't mean that our words need to be fighting words. A dangerous and consequential time is also a time for being strategic, for thinking about the most effective ways to speak and to act in relation to the dangers we face.
It is generally a good idea when speaking with people to follow the basic rules of effective civil communication:
But no amount of civil dialogue will stop the forces that are fighting to maintain social power at the expense of the rest of us.
Long before Trump came onto the political scene, Republican legislators had stopped engaging in political compromise. It was very disheartening that the response of liberals was often to wring their hands and call for more civil dialogue. Being civil with those who are bent on your destruction is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Fighting against the rising forces of fascism in this country does not require us to be routinely uncivil, but it does require much more of us than civility. We engage in significant social change when we pressure political systems to change.
We need to step outside of our comfort zones to do that.
We need to make those who are abusing their power uncomfortable. And we need to out-organize them to take away their power to destroy the fabric of our society.
That involves mobilizing social resources to shut down the abuses of power that exist in a wide variety of forms.
Our silence will not protect us, and neither will our civility.