Does the conversation already exist and, if so, does this add to it or advance it at all?

Unlike the other questions proposed in the site introduction, this one won’t need a real-life example to explore. A quick recap: the first post in this series asked Are we ready? The second post questioned the sincerity of any dialogue taking place. You can guess which topic this post will cover.

So far, NFL star Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest during the 2016 season has served as the go to example for this discussion about discussions. This post won’t need to rely on Kaepernick because this post focuses on a more literal question than a what-if scenario.

“In essence, society gives the messenger too much focus instead of the dialogue itself.”

Since this really comes down to a yes or no question, it’s important to talk about why this question matters. Too often in today’s world of quick information and short term memory, the most recent person to point out a problem tends to get credit for discovering it. From there, society ties that person to the discussion. This means that person’s actions and words suddenly weigh on the legitimacy of the problem they point out.

In essence, society gives the messenger too much focus instead of the dialogue itself. Naturally, it becomes much easier to question the legitimacy of a dialogue when its catalyst messes up and can no longer speak on the issue. Meanwhile, people trying to advance the discussion lose a key figure in getting their voice heard.

Why go through all the trouble of placing pressure on one person or a few people when they really don’t matter that much in the grand scheme? A legitimate issue remains a legitimate issue whether or not the most recent person to speak on it’s credibility.

Yet, we don’t always see it that way. That’s why it’s so important to recognize how long this dialogue has existed before it’s current incarnation. A reminder of why we should care helps but that’s where its importance should end. Reminders should aid a situation, not replace it or become the basis for a discussion about it.

“A diluted dialogue helps no one. It becomes too hard to strain the useful information and the saturation of voices clogs progress.”

It seems like common sense that any contribution to the conversation needs to advance it. Still, though, too many voices try to join in without adding anything new, original or constructive. Too many empty voices can dilute the dialogue.

A diluted dialogue helps no one. It becomes too hard to  strain the useful information and the saturation of voices clogs progress. Anyone can add a sound to the symphony but that sound needs to consist of more than just white noise.

Too much white noise gives the impression that the useless sound matters just as much as useful sound. Paying too much attention to the latest voice in the discussion and ignoring the useful history of the conversation prevent progress.

For anyone keeping score at home, here’s a summary for the series until now: we’re only ready for a dialogue if we’re willing to listen to dissenters, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the voice is genuine–it only matters that the conversation has substance and don’t ignore the history of the dialogue by placing too much importance on the newest voice. If we can follow these goals, any discussion going forward might hopefully happen constructively.