An attempt at mutual understanding III

Yesterday, Leon and I finished working on the first blog post and reposted it. We were happy with the result. We are happy with the result of the blog post. Our two discussion partners Caspar and NewMan, however... What you don't know is how often during this communication phase — in my opinion, I must add — they escalated the situation completely unnecessarily. So much so that Leon withdrew from written communication on the subject during the last additional conflict 1-2 weeks ago. Now again tonight. Once again, we felt bombarded with numerous questions and accusations that made it seem as if we were facing a judge, legislator, and executioner all rolled into one. There were also contradictions to previous rounds of talks. One complaint, for example, was that the picture that emerged from this first post was not as balanced or well-rounded as I had promised — of course, not all the texts are out yet. Only then can the requested well-rounded picture emerge.

So I feel (once again) as if I am talking to a brick wall. Therefore, I have followed Leon's example today and am completely withdrawing from written and remote communication with FCA about this conflict. The attempt at communication has thus failed.

What does this mean for my blog?

I have informed Caspar and NewMan that “from now on, I will run my blog as I see fit, without regard for you.” As I announced, I will finish revising the remaining texts together with Leon and then gradually post them online with corrections. After all, FCA had valid criticisms on some points. I am happy to listen to such realistic criticism and am grateful for it. However, during the discussions and escalations, I increasingly got the impression that they didn't want to see mistakes corrected, but rather texts that they felt comfortable with, and that I stop talking about and rather conceal the problems from the past. My full review will clearly explain why that is not an option. Here is a short excerpt from one of the texts still to come:

Where do you draw the line between “not bashing someone” and “putting on a brave face”?

The magic factors here are scale and whether internal criticism has been listened to so far.

• The scale: our joint project FCA had already suffered massive damage (conflict within the team, work was impaired, and two of the longest-serving and key team members gave up) and these problems have persisted for years.
• Internal interventions: every normal, legal, appropriate means of expressing civilized criticism had been exhausted already, but there was no improvement. Some aspects even got worse and became personal.

At that point, it is no longer time to “put on a brave face” and be considerate of the things that could be damaged. Because the essentials are already damaged. Then such things need to be made public. This is not about feelings of revenge. If it were about revenge, the revision would have been much easier. So what is it about? About hope. I hope FCA would turn things around and finally correct these issues before much more is destroyed than “just” Leon and me and the deep chasm that already runs through the German anti-contact self-help community.

I am sad. Just so sad about so much... about what exactly? The escalation today. It was just not necessary. One could also simply acknowledge that I did exactly what was requested and discussed: stick to the facts, leave out unnecessary bits, and clearly label opinions/viewpoints as such.
And I'm afraid. Of further anger and escalation on the part of FCA members.

Time for this Uta Köbernick song: https://youtu.be/7CGYDRd4sUg