Forum Replies Created

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Denise McCormack
    Participant
    Denise McCormack
    Participant

    I will create a google doc for folks wanting to ride share. Time, date, and place of arrival can be marked, along with contact information of those interested in connecting.

    in reply to: Policy of Engaged Neutrality #10760
    Denise McCormack
    Participant

    For those folks who cannot reply here, I’ve created a collection at https://forms.gle/XVAnrQmuT71gEaRv9 and have shared it with affiliate organization members. Please feel free to share it with NSN members and affiliates in your organizations.

    in reply to: Policy of Engaged Neutrality #10743
    Denise McCormack
    Participant

    I don’t know if this is up to date, but let’s check: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/445460-states-passing-and-considering-new-abortion-laws-in-2019. I do not wish to attend a summit in any state that tries to restrict rights to autonomy.

    in reply to: Supporting Summit Locations, regardless of politics #10742
    Denise McCormack
    Participant

    THIS IS THE LINK TO DISCUSSION; THIS IS NOT THE FORUM BEING USED. GO TO: https://storynet.org/forums/topic/policy-of-engaged-neutrality/#post-10739

    in reply to: Policy of Engaged Neutrality #10739
    Denise McCormack
    Participant

    Engaged Neutrality suggests that no action or lack of action can be interpreted as bias; however, for an organization to deliberately select to create a circumstance that will arguably demonstrate a strong bias can only be construed as supporting bias and actions and tenets.

    Moreover, any suggestion that this conference is a means to “building bridges” of understanding concurrently suggests that the mission of the conference is, conversely, to address a political stance.

    In this case, the message rings something like “Can’t we all just get along?” In fact, it seems to call for a willingness for members to comply with and encourage individuals to give up their civil liberties, to be good sports and reasonable folks who can certainly compromise and give away just a little bit of their rights to personal autonomy and freedom. Where is that line?

    The only relevant point on which everyone might agree is that the Summit is not an appropriate platform for such diliberance, and this is exactly the speak that isn’t wanted. Other industries are boycotting Georgia. Aren’t we crossing a “picket-line” here? Isn’t that a big statement?

    The sheer act of having to ask this question is an acknowledgement of its weight and its perceived potential consequences. Thus, it irrevocably removes the organization from qualifying as a neutral entity participating in “engaged neutrality”.

    I can certainly elaborate further, but this rationale is the most unbiased, apolitical argument that I can muster. For me, the personal is the political. Politics is about people and their connection to the world, the community. To abstain from the political, is to turn away from the plight of people, a sin of omission.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
Scroll to Top