The Zero Aggression Project launches next Monday. What will that mean for you?
Imagine if you stopped caring whether you persuaded anyone to agree with you. What if instead…
You simply sought to have people UNDERSTAND what you believe and why you believe it?
If you’re like the two of us (Jim & Perry), then you feel like this…
People think they know what I believe, but they really don’t. And they know even less about WHY I believe it.
Can you relate to that? If so, here’s what we think…
Arguing causes this.
You offer an idea. Your friend debates. Now he’s trying to win an argument, instead of listening. It’s a contest instead of an exchange of ideas. You wanted reflection; you got reaction instead.
But what if you stopped debating and embraced simple sharing instead.
What does this mean? How can it be done? Here’s our idea…
- First, stop expecting people to say, “You’ve convinced me.”
- Second, use impersonal sharing tools. Our site is designed to give you such tools. It will be far more effective to have someone read a short article or watch a short video than to engage them in a long debate. Reading and watching are both more reflective activities, while debating is almost always reactive.
- Third, give people an impersonal way to register disagreement. Moving a slider to “strongly disagree,” or signing a petition against your position doesn’t start an argument in the same way face-to-face disagreement does.
These seem like simple things, but maybe they could have a profound effect. Consider…
What would happen if you simply planted a new idea in a new mind every day, without worrying if it caused any instant change?
For instance, what if every single American mind came to contain ideas such as the Zero Aggression Principle…
Don’t threaten or initiate force, or ask politicians to do it for you.
Do you think that would…
- Have a long-term positive effect on the culture?
- Enable you to discover, recruit, and activate some of the 1-in-5 Americans who already self-identify as libertarian?
We have a metaphor we use to describe this sharing process. We call it…
The Mental Depth Charge
A depth charge is a naval weapon that must sink to a certain depth before it explodes. Well, aren’t ideas like that?
Don’t ideas need time to sink in before they can cause change?
But how can ideas have time to sink in if you’re arguing with your intended audience?
Can we learn to simply share ideas, without arguing?
This is the challenge. We need to find ways to share more and argue less. We need to strive to foster reflection rather than reaction. We’ll be attempting to do this starting on Monday, June 1. In the meantime…
If you’re not already a member of the ZAP Founders Committee please consider joining before it closes on May 31st.
Founders will be immortalized on the ZAP website.
You’ll be able to say, “I was in on the ground floor of the Zero Aggression movement.”
- Become a Founder by donating here. Or…
- If you’re already a member, raise your current listing on the roster by donating more (the names are ranked by size, cumulative)
You can take a quick tour of the new ZAP site when you visit the contribution form. Some sections are already open, and some are behind a curtain, to be unveiled Monday, June 1. That’s days away!
If you have libertarian friends who might be interested in ZAP, please forward this article to them.
With high hopes for the future,
Perry Willis & Jim Babka
Co-creators, the Zero Aggression Project
What you are doing IMO is simply changing the hostility that people show when confronted with a new idea to GENUINE ARGUMENT…
I have no disagreement with your method but when your ‘counterpart’ has hostile ideas, your method just results in stonewalling….. guaranteed, we are fully aware of this tactic in the face of open discussion…
I will grant you that SOME people are so FEARFUL of opposing opinions that they freakout when two genuine intelligent members of the group engage in spirited opposition of ideas but those people are stifling resolutions and causing festering malfunctions of the group…
good luck with your name change and wonder how you would deal with the stonewallers in government bureaucracies…
the recent ‘battle’ in the Senate was badly needed and shows what good things come from vigorous opposition to those who simply impose their ideologies… and the libertarians were good at arguing… ttyl