July 16 Staff Meeting by Carson Misner

It's hard to think of a good route other than an RTT profile since so many orgs do work that is soft and since our approach is not the norm in our space

2025-07-16 20:44:02 UTC

False Binary - Outlier or Trend?

2025-07-16 20:44:02 UTC

The field isn't simply conflict entrepreneurship vs kumbaya complex. We are proof of that. But are we a sole outlier? Or are we part of a growing trend?

RTT knows how to absorb skepticism and transform it into the foundation of receptivity ... how can we eat all the cynicism here for dinner like in a program of skeptical participants

claire1130 — 2025-07-16 20:44:42 UTC

The NYT article positions the Kumbaya Industrial Complex as the antidote to the "Outrage Industrial Complex" (also named in the article). But we don't see ourselves as fighting "outrage" or "anger" - we see ourselves as correcting distortion, mis-seeing, complete mis-understanding. Which are all RAMPANT. And people who are distorted and mis-seen, really don't like that and want it fixed.

2025-07-16 20:44:45 UTC

rebecca363 — 2025-07-16 20:45:16 UTC

Our work is rigorous. At its best, it's not a "feel good" weekend. It requires work and practice to build a real muscle to make lasting impact.

2025-07-16 20:45:23 UTC

It's easy to look at the field cynically while proposing no viable alternatives; it's hard to bridge differences.

2025-07-16 20:45:31 UTC

Honest productive encounters across difference require grit, commitment, and skill. This work is explicitly not for the faint of heart. If we are to enable productive confrontation, it means that people will be challenged.

Conflict & Narrative Change

2025-07-16 20:45:39 UTC

What makes our narrative change work unique and successful is that we lean into conflict, which is the language of screenwriters. We are not 'sneaking in spinach', but asking the creators to go deeper into what they're already doing, and providing concrete tools to do it better.

2025-07-16 20:45:53 UTC

There was a quote in the NY times article that said “If you’re a student, you need to feel that the way you earn credibility is to be a bridge builder, not a conflict entrepreneur…” Our field is not Kumbaya because it’s extremely easy to be a conflict entrepreneur especially on social media where you can make clickbait takedown media, but to do the hard, real, brave work of earning credibility means deeply engaging and sitting with difference and that should be (and maybe we’re on the road to making it) the badge of respect & credibility in our society.

2025-07-16 20:46:03 UTC

The NYT article doesn't talk about the rigor of RTT's methods, or how it takes time and practice to build the skills we teach and to build trusted relationships with people you disagree with.

some thoughts

2025-07-16 20:46:11 UTC

1) don't fight the term, its time wasted and gets us "attached to it". 2) inherent in a pathologizing of kumbaya is race and gender 3) don't spend time defending or calling out we arent it. 4) be very wary of "industrial complex" it implies profiteering and movement away from the cause 5) do what you all do best- tell the stories of tranformation, deal with the cynics with hopeful skepticism and Listen to Michele's visit to the nobelaureates on dialogue.

You're skeptical of bridging work because most bridging work isn't very good, and national news tends to focus on trends

2025-07-16 20:46:17 UTC

RTT exists in part as a response to the very dynamics that make people roll their eyes at about the majority of bridging work - that it is conflict avoidant, that it is liberal, that it is to the side of what really matters, that it is soft and "feel good."

2025-07-16 20:46:18 UTC

Not about holding hands and singing, but everyone grabbing a shovel to dig our way out of the mire. It's messy and labor intensive

rebecca363 — 2025-07-16 20:46:19 UTC

It is hard to get true ideologues in the room -- that's why this work requires real relationship and trust building. We can't just cater to the "silent majority." It must include the full spectrum, but that means intentional outreach and relationship building, not just advertising a workshop.

2025-07-16 20:46:25 UTC

What is the NY Times' role in shaping opinions on this work as soft of kumbayah or not? Their stance of cynicism is, in part, how we got to where we are. So, could you (NY Times) try something different?

2025-07-16 20:46:42 UTC

RTT allows people to maintain conviction while allowing others to do the same. The nature of this work builds solidarity in a unique way.

we're doing something different

claire1130 — 2025-07-16 20:46:43 UTC

2025-07-16 20:46:45 UTC

Diplomacy, realpolitik, and negotiation are things we've tried. Look around — they're not working. Network science proves to us that relationships are the make-or-break between success and failure in problem-solving, workplace settings, and nature. We need to work on the relational aspect of life in order to be able to break through our society's greatest challenges, and we can't go to the "hard skills" ways.

2025-07-16 20:47:02 UTC

Sharing stories of real change and movement that may have seemed impossible, but were able to bring people to a different place than anyone could have imagined

seannewinslow — 2025-07-16 20:47:21 UTC

I get why editors might say RTT feels too “kumbaya”—but I actually think that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what this work is. People are scared to look at what’s actually required to change outcomes for the future, because on some deep, evolutionary level, we believe safety comes from being warned. So instead of doing the gritty work of change, we focus on sounding the alarm.

But RTT isn’t about avoiding conflict or pretending everything’s fine. It’s about building the capacity to stay in hard conversations, to take responsibility for what happens next, instead of letting it be shaped by bad actors—or passively reported on by those amplifying the division. It’s not kumbaya. It’s a different kind of rigor.

Give a bullseye to the cynicism

2025-07-16 20:47:52 UTC

Peacemaker vs Peacekeeper

2025-07-16 20:48:17 UTC

I presented a message at our church a couple of weeks ago that differentiated between "peacemakers" and "peacekeepers." The latter is about conflict avoidance and superficial calm that doesn't resolve the underlying differences or bring reconciliation. The former actually moves toward conflict and seeks real relationships and trust-building.

2025-07-16 20:49:09 UTC

The hardest work happens in our rooms — going towards the hardest, most fiery differences. Kumbaya is in the business of crafting cosmetic/superficial relationships. Those are very fragile when real difference begins to arise... a house built on stilts. RTT is in the business of strength. The strongest relationships are forged in fire.

2025-07-16 20:50:17 UTC

It can be scary for people to do this work, and so they try to dismiss it. Are people willing to make the choice to do what might be the hardest thing, that actually has the potential to bring real change

The Trump Factor

2025-07-16 20:53:06 UTC

Implied in the article, and a recurring theme in many conversations around bridging, is the seeming impossibility of being able achieve mutual intelligibility regarding Trump. There's lot of evidence that many Americans can work, talk, and live together across big differences, but not when it comes to Trump. That singular difference is a chasm into which all hope falls.

America isn’t special. It’s not the only divided society, and it’s not the first to face this level of polarization. What is rare is our reluctance to take seriously the kind of work that actually helps us move forward. Resetting the Table is doing the kind of hard, relational, non-performative work that has always been at the heart of societal transformation. It’s not shiny, but it’s essential.

seannewinslow — 2025-07-16 20:53:08 UTC

Someone said we do the work in a different way: conflict transformation and dialogue are not a weekend retreat, but a mindset to have with you every day

2025-07-16 20:54:53 UTC