Brian Soebbing

And some people say, well, it's just the nature of political debate and discourse.

And it's not really a big problem if it's an ad hominem attack.

Then you talk to others, particularly members of marginalized groups and women, people in visible minority communities, or Edmonton city councillors who were the victims of a terrorist attack not too long ago.

And they say, look, there's a path that we start down when we start letting some of these things go.

And so part of what we do in this course and the broader Common Ground Toolkit that we're developing through our research team is to give people those self-diagnostic tools, right?

To recognize...

When we're doing things that aren't exactly contributing positively to the conversation.

I got to tell you, since we started this course, you'll notice that my own social media commentary has slowed down quite a bit because I'm checking myself.

My drafts folder is a treasure trove for people to analyze what could be tribalist behavior.

Yeah.

I mean, it's not about always building common ground, right?

And some of our

Colleagues south of the border, when they give talks or deliver courses like this, they often get criticized.

One of them is Anand Giridharadas, who says one time he was confronted by an audience member who said, what do you expect us to do, just go up and hug a Nazi?

And his response was really good.

He said, well, maybe don't start with the Nazis.

But how about we start with the fact that not everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi?

And I think that's what we're trying to tell students to do.

Not all of them in every situation are going to feel comfortable and safe enough to interject and to oppose.

But they need to be able to recognize when it is safe and what their own conflict modality is.