A social media story of coming together

Is it possible?

Apologies to those who don’t use Twitter. It may seem disconnected, but this is due to Twitter’s limitations of 240 characters. Also know, that exchanges like this on Twitter often blow up into name calling and lots of bad feelings. This ended differently, and I’ll talk about why afterwards.

Here’s the story:

Someone I follow on Twitter but have never met — someone very liberal — tweeted something negative about the bank bailout of 2008.

Here’s his tweet:

“A small % of small businesses hit this year got loans. But make no mistake, the banks (aka crooks) got bailed out in 2010 and gave their execs $ millions in bonuses.”

That made me see red. So, I tweeted:

“Yes, to the bonuses but most, if not all, of the 2010 were loans that have been paid back.”

He then replied:

“But the banks were crooks who got bailed out of the situation they themselves created. And the money they received allowed them to recover and then give bonuses instead of going to jail, like they should have. And homeowners got nothing.”

My reply was:

“I agree about the bonuses but if it didn’t happen then everyone who had any money in those banks could have lost it. Allowing many other people to suffer & lose would have been indescribably painful.”

His response:

“Good point. What's infuriating was the complete lack of accountability whatsoever. In fact, when it was all said and done they were essentially rewarded for their behavior.”

My final response:

“Could it have been done better, yes. But without it we might still be in a continuation of the 2008 recession.”

He liked the last tweet.

As I said, this ended up with agreement, not something that usually happens on Twitter.

What’s the secret? I used at least some of the ALAR method. Here’s my grade on using the method.

A — Ask: I didn’t do well on this one, I didn’t ask any questions. I give myself an F.

L — Listen: I didn’t do badly on this one. I give myself a C+.

A: — Affirm: I did this one pretty well. I did agree with his point on the bonuses, but I could have also agreed that nothing was done for the homeowners. I give myself a B.

R— Reframe: Here’s where I really shine and give myself an A. Focusing on the amount of money innocent people could have lost and how painful that would be was a use of the moral foundation of care for others. That’s strong in liberals like my Twitter friend, and that’s what won the day I think.

Lesson of the day for me: You don’t have to do everything perfectly for the method to work. Just get some of it right, and the conversation will change. And maybe, just maybe, you can get to an agreement.

But here is the caveat. This only works if it is between people who are trying to connect. I have tried this a couple of other times on a thread with lots of people, and it got derailed quickly.