How compassion could save your strained relationships Betty Hart

Transcriber:

I am unabashedly a daddy’s girl.

My daddy is the first person
to have told me that I was beautiful.

He often told me that he loved me,

and he was one of my favorite
people in the entire world,

which was why it was really challenging

to discover that we had
a deep ideological divide

that was so sincere and so deep

that caused me to not talk
to him for 10 years.

Before the term was coined,

I canceled my father.

In the last few years,

cancel culture has of course
come into great prominence.

It’s existed throughout time,

but cancel culture in the bigger society

is when a person in prominence
says or does something

that we, the people, disagree with,

and the decision is made
to make them persona non grata.

They are done.

They are not to be revered.

They are not to be
a part of our world anymore.

And that is in the public realm.

I’m going to talk to you today
about the private realm.

When we choose to cancel
the people in our circle,

the people in our core,

the people who love us and who we love,

and it has been mutually beneficial,

but due to a deep
and sincere ideological divide,

we make the decision
to cancel them out of our lives.

I want to suggest that
cancel culture needs to change,

and instead we need to
move to compassion culture.

But before I go there,

let me tell you
two of the premises that exist

when we indulge in cancel culture.

One, we have to believe that we’re right.

A hundred percent,

no possibility of being wrong.

And two, the other person,

the person we’re going to cancel,

clearly does not have the ability

to change, to grow, to develop.

Obviously, both of these are problematic

because sometimes we’re not right.

I don’t know about you,
but there have been times in my life

when I knew beyond
a shadow of a doubt that I was right

only to discover that I was wrong,

badly wrong, completely missed the mark.

So if it could happen to me
and perhaps it’s happened to you,

perhaps it could happen to others.

The second is a little
even more challenging

because I know that
I’ve changed over the years.

Haven’t we all?

Though the core parts of Betty
have pretty much stayed the same,

there have been key elements
that have changed drastically.

The Betty of eight years old was
not the same as the Betty of 18,

which was not the same as 28,
which was not the same as 38.

I’ve changed.

And if I’m able to change,

shouldn’t I extend grace
to believe that others can change too?

So what should we do?

Instead of canceling people,
we should use the tool called compassion.

I find the definition of compassion
is a fascinating one.

And it’s not one
that I hear people talk about.

Compassion means to suffer with someone.

To suffer alongside them.

Imagine.

When someone, say, Grandpa,

says that thing
that’s caused you to decide

he’s no longer invited to Thanksgiving,

what if instead we chose
to suffer alongside him?

We decided that our love
was so big, so deep, so strong

that we were willing to suffer,

even when it could be potentially painful.

Now let’s be clear.

I am not denying anyone’s right
to cancel anyone else.

What I’m suggesting is that
maybe that’s not the best way.

When we think about the situation
with Grandpa at Thanksgiving,

if we choose to cancel him,

we are no longer in proximity to him.

Not only do we not get to hear
his point of view,

we don’t get to share ours.

What if we’re the only person,

because of our deep connection and love
and affection for our grandfather –

and substitute anyone you choose.

What if we’re the ones
to plant seeds of change,

seeds of influence,

seeds of difference.

Now, to be fair,

I cannot promise you
that just because you plant the seed,

that it will get water,

that it’ll get any sunlight
or even a little fertilizer.

But what I can tell you
is that if you don’t plant it,

who will?

I find it interesting,

this idea of suffering alongside someone.

It means that we are choosing
to value the totality of the person

rather than one particular aspect,

like a framework or a mindset
or a belief system.

We’re choosing to believe
that the entire person is more valuable

than any of the individual parts.

And I found an amazing duo
who demonstrated this beautifully.

Perhaps you’ve heard of them.

The late justices

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia

were close, close friends.

And they were completely divided
in terms of belief systems.

In fact, Antonin Scalia once said,

“What’s not to like,
other than her thoughts on the law.”

He believed she was wrong.

She believed he was wrong.

They did not shift
in that point of view whatsoever.

And yet they had tea together every week,

and every New Year’s Eve,

they spent it together
with their families.

They went on family vacations together.

They chose to suffer
with each other rather

than to cancel each other.

Their love and respect for each other

continued to grow,

even though they never saw eye to eye.

I imagine that curiosity
might be a part of that.

That if we choose to be curious
about that which is different,

we might discover something along the way.

After all, if we are who we are
because of our lived experiences,

isn’t that true for someone else?

And have we ever decided
to use that tool of empathy,

of walking a mile or so
in someone else’s shoes

to really discover the context
for why they believe what they believe?

Now, by now you’re probably saying,

“Yeah, OK, Betty, this sounds good.

But what about you?

What about you and your dad?”

It’s a fair question.

After 10 years of not talking to my dad,

I picked up the phone one day,
called him and said,

“I bet if it were up to you,

you’d probably go back in time
and change some things.

I know I would.

But since we can’t,

how about we start again?”

And he said,

“Yes, because I love you.

I always have. And I always will.”

I am so grateful that I made that call

because there was no way for me to know

that a few years later
my dad would develop Alzheimer’s.

And a few years after that he would die.

And we never saw eye to eye
about the thing that divided us,

ever.

But our love continued.

It continued through those 10 years
when we didn’t speak

and it continued in the six years after.

So I am encouraging us
to become a society of people

that choose compassion over canceling.

I’m asking us to consider

that curiosity might be a better practice.

That we might choose empathy,

that we might choose
to have a love that is so deep, so wide,

so strong that it can surpass differences.

Why are we so scared
of differences anyway?

I also want us to be a people
that plant seeds,

seeds of change, seeds of influence,

seeds of diversity.

Again, I cannot promise
to you or anyone else

that planting that seed
is going to make a difference.

But what if it does?

I am the sum of who I am

because of everything
that I’ve been exposed to.

My mind has changed over the years

and grown because of the people
in my life who planted seeds in me,

some that I saw and some that I didn’t.

So wouldn’t it be great

if instead of having a cancel culture

we create a compassion culture

where we are willing to suffer
alongside the ones we love,

because we love them.

And can’t we become
a community that plants seeds?

After all, if we don’t, who will?

Thank you.

抄写员:

我毫不掩饰地是爸爸的女儿。

我爸爸是第
一个告诉我我很漂亮的人。

他经常告诉我他爱我

,他是我在全世界最喜欢的
人之一,

这就是为什么

发现我们之间

存在如此真诚和如此深刻的深刻意识形态分歧真的很有挑战性,

以至于我不 和
他谈了10年。

在这个词被创造出来之前,

我取消了我的父亲。

在过去的几年里,

取消文化当然
变得非常突出。

它一直存在,

但在更大的社会中取消文化

是当一个显赫的人
说或做

了我们人民不同意的事情,


决定让他们成为不受欢迎的人。

他们完成了。

他们不应该受到尊敬。

他们
不再是我们世界的一部分。

那是在公共领域。

我今天要和你
谈谈私人领域。

当我们选择取消
我们圈子里

的人,我们核心

的人,爱我们的人和我们爱的人

,这是互惠互利的,

但由于深刻
而真诚的思想分歧,

我们
决定取消 他们离开了我们的生活。

我想建议
取消文化需要改变

,相反我们需要
转向同情文化。

但在我去那里之前,

让我告诉你

当我们沉迷于取消文化时存在的两个前提。

一,我们必须相信我们是对的。

百分百,

没有错的可能。

第二,另一个

人,我们要取消的人,

显然没有

能力改变、成长、发展。

显然,这两个都是有问题的,

因为有时我们是不对的。

我不了解你,
但在我的生活中,有几次我

毫无疑问地知道我是对的

,结果却发现我错了,

大错特错,完全错过了目标。

所以如果它可能发生在我身上
,也许它发生在你身上,

也许它可能发生在其他人身上。

第二个
更具挑战性,

因为我知道这些年来
我已经改变了。

我们不是吗?

尽管 Betty 的核心部分
几乎保持不变,

但关键元素
发生了巨大变化。

8岁
的贝蒂和18岁的贝蒂

不一样,28岁
的贝蒂不一样,38岁的贝蒂也不一样。

我变了。

如果我能够改变,

难道我不应该
给予恩典相信别人也能改变吗?

那么我们应该怎么做呢?

我们应该使用称为同情的工具,而不是取消人员。

我发现同情的定义
是一个迷人的定义。


不是我听到人们谈论的一个。

同情意味着与某人一起受苦。

和他们一起受苦。

想象。

当有人,比如说,爷爷,

说了那件事
让你决定

不再邀请他参加感恩节

,如果我们选择
和他一起受苦怎么办?

我们决定,我们的爱
是如此之大、如此之深、如此强烈

,以至于我们愿意受苦,

即使它可能是潜在的痛苦。

现在让我们说清楚。

我并不否认任何人
取消其他人的权利。

我的建议是,
也许这不是最好的方法。

当我们想到
感恩节与爷爷的情况时,

如果我们选择取消他,

我们就不再靠近他。

我们不仅不能听到
他的观点,

我们也不能分享我们的观点。

如果我们是唯一的人,

因为我们对祖父有着深厚的联系、爱
和感情——

并且可以替代您选择的任何人。

如果我们是那些
播下改变的

种子、影响的

种子、差异的种子的人。

现在,公平地说,

我不能
仅仅因为你种下种子就向你保证

,它会得到水

,它会得到任何阳光
甚至一点肥料。

但我可以告诉你的
是,如果你不种,

谁会呢?

我觉得很有趣,

这种与某人一起受苦的想法。

这意味着我们
选择重视一个人的整体,

而不是一个特定的方面,

比如一个框架、一种心态
或一个信念系统。

我们选择
相信整个人

比任何单个部分都更有价值。

我找到了一个很棒的二人组
,他们完美地展示了这一点。

也许你听说过他们。

已故大法官

露丝·巴德·金斯伯格和安东宁·斯卡利亚

是亲密的朋友。

他们
在信仰体系方面完全分裂。

事实上,安东宁·斯卡利亚曾经说过,


除了她对法律的看法,还有什么不喜欢的。”

他相信她错了。

她相信他错了。

他们并没有
改变那种观点。

然而,他们每周都一起喝茶

,每年除夕,

他们都
和家人一起度过。

他们一起去家庭度假。

他们选择
与对方一起受苦,而

不是互相取消。

他们对彼此的爱和尊重

继续增长,

尽管他们从未见过面。

我想好奇心
可能是其中的一部分。

如果我们选择对不同之处感到
好奇,

我们可能会在此过程中发现一些东西。

毕竟,如果我们是
因为我们的生活经历而成为我们自己,

那么对于其他人来说不是这样吗?

我们有没有
决定使用同理心的工具,在别人的鞋子

里走一英里左右

来真正发现
他们为什么相信他们所相信的东西的背景?

现在,现在你可能会说,

“是的,好吧,贝蒂,这听起来不错。

但是你呢

?你和你爸爸呢?”

这是一个公平的问题。

在 10 年没和爸爸说话之后

,有一天我拿起电话
给他打电话说:

“我敢打赌,如果由你决定,

你可能会及时回到过去
,改变一些事情。

我知道我会

……不过既然做不到,那

我们重新开始怎么样?”

他说:

“是的,因为我爱你。

我一直爱你。而且我永远都会。”

我很感激我打了这个电话,

因为我无法

知道几年后
我父亲会患上老年痴呆症。

几年后,他将死去。

我们从来没有在
分裂我们的事情上意见一致,

从来没有。

但我们的爱还在继续。

它一直持续到
我们不说话的那 10 年,并

在之后的 6 年里持续。

所以我鼓励
我们成为

一个选择同情而不是取消的社会。

我要求我们

考虑好奇心可能是一种更好的做法。

我们可能会选择同理心

,我们可能会
选择拥有一种如此深刻、如此广泛、

如此强烈以至于可以超越差异的爱。

为什么我们如此
害怕差异呢?

我也希望我们成为
一个播下

种子、改变的种子、影响力的

种子、多样性的种子的人。

再说一次,我不能
向你或其他任何人

保证,播下那颗
种子会有所作为。

但如果真的发生了怎么办?

我是我的总和,

因为我接触过的一切。

这些年来,我的想法发生了变化

并成长,因为我生命中的人
在我身上播下了种子,

有些我看到了,有些我没有。

因此,

如果我们不是取消取消文化,

而是创建一种同情文化

,我们愿意
与我们所爱的人一起受苦,那不是很好,

因为我们爱他们。

我们不能成为
一个播种的社区吗?

毕竟,如果我们不这样做,谁会呢?

谢谢你。