version 0.4 feedback invited.

10-12 minutes read

In an age of rising populism and polarisation, the ability to engage in compassionate, open, and transformative conversations about gender and race has never been more urgent. Yet, for many people, especially white women, such dialogues come with layers of pain, defensiveness, and fear. How do we navigate these obstacles, particularly in contexts like Nonviolent Communication (NVC) as developed by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg? This question invites us to reimagine the decolonising roots of NVC and to critique the instrumental rationality that shapes much of Western thought on identity and power.

Here is my draft integration, offered as a white trans woman, sociologist, and NVC practitioner. I carry an extensive trauma history, which, with the support of an intersectional local women’s shelter, I am only just beginning to uncover. It deeply pains me to recognise how my trauma has contributed to my showing up, most especially in NVC communities in ways that I don’t fully enjoy. My hope is that this work will contribute to our growth and impact as feminists.

The Historical Weight of Instrumental Rationality and “Gender Ideology” Critiques

Our struggles in communicating across divides of race and gender are not entirely personal, they are rooted in centuries of intellectual history. Instrumental rationality, a core product of Enlightenment thinking, values efficiency, categorisation, and control, seeing individuals as means to an end. Grounded in the ideals of “progress,” Enlightenment thought also justified colonisation and the imposition of hierarchical social structures on diverse populations. This mindset reduced complex, living beings to roles and functions, defining people in ways that facilitated control and exploitation. Such thinking laid the groundwork for rigid social categories, race and gender among them, and enabled colonial systems to justify their dehumanising practices.

This Enlightenment legacy is also reflected in contemporary gender-critical, or “sex realist,” beliefs, such as those tweeted by J.K. Rowling. Rowling, along with other proponents of “sex realism,” often rejects what she terms “gender ideology,” the view that gender identity may differ from biological sex and that identity can hold as much validity as biology in social and legal contexts. By characterising “gender ideology” as invalid or dangerous, sex realists imply that the identities and lived experiences of transgender and non-binary individuals are less legitimate, reinforcing an essentialist view of sex and gender.

Judith Butler, challenges this perspective in their recent work on nonviolence, arguing that rigid categories of identity can lead to dehumanisation and social conflict. They posit that to practice true nonviolence, we must recognise and honour the fluidity of identity rather than enforcing fixed binaries that exclude and stigmatise. When NVC practitioners identify as “sex realist”, are they also dismissing gender identity as “ideology”? Is this incongruent with NVC’s foundations of empathy and nonviolence since “sex realism” denies the lived reality of those who exist beyond binary definitions of sex and gender? Or perhaps it is a simply a strategy in service of privileging ‘womens rights’ and safety over the strategy of a more intersectional feminism. How much does their trauma play a role?

Sarah Peyton’s work on the neuroscience of connection provides insight into why instrumental, left-brain thinking is so highly valued and reinforced. Peyton explains that left-brain, analytical thinking gives us a dopamine hit—a pleasurable reward that reinforces patterns of control, categorisation, and problem-solving. This kind of thinking, often celebrated in patriarchal structures, aligns with a focus on hierarchy, certainty, and efficiency. In a society that prizes instrumental rationality, these dopamine-reinforcing activities are seen as markers of intelligence and competence, further elevating them as desirable ways of engaging with the world.

By contrast, relational, nurturing, and intuitive ways of thinking—qualities often associated with femininity—are less likely to trigger this dopamine-driven reward. As a result, these more “feminine” modes of connection and empathy are undervalued and underdeveloped in a system that privileges categorisation over connection. Patriarchal systems thus encourage the pursuit of clarity and control at the expense of relational depth, often framing empathy and relational skills as “soft” or secondary. This dynamic reinforces a worldview that finds comfort in binary categories like “male” and “female,” while devaluing the fluidity and complexity inherent in gender and identity.

There is a notable irony in “sex realism” which insists on rigid, biologically determined definitions of womanhood, in that its proponants often claim an assuredness in rationality and rely upon and reinforce a legislative framework rooted in traditional sexual dimorphism. From binary birth certificates to legal definitions of gender based solely on assigned sex at birth, these systems have historically served as tools to control women’s bodies and reproduction, reinforcing their roles within marriage and, at times, framing women and children as legal property. Ironically, the very structures that sex realists appeal to when defending biological essentialism are those that have long justified the ownership, regulation, and restriction of women. By anchoring womanhood exclusively in biological terms, sex realism inadvertently perpetuates a view of identity that aligns with the same frameworks that have constrained women for centuries. To rely on these structures as the foundation of “defending women’s rights” is, therefore, a paradox, as it risks reinforcing the mechanisms of control that feminism has long sought to dismantle.

Recognising the Limitations of Universalism in NVC

I have seen some nonviolence practioners reluctant to walk towards racism, offering that NVC is a universal practice, applicable across all cultures and identities. To a large extent I have sympathy with that perspective, the principles of empathy, compassion, and nonviolence are indeed universally valuable and have the potential to transform human relationships. Furthermore there are many challenges in walking towards internalised racism as a privileged person, on the face of it, it is easy to see why it might not be an engaging proposition or use of ones time to ‘give up’ ones priveledge. However I am more and more convinced that without a conscious deconstruction of colonial privilege and the internalised structures of power that have shaped much of modern communication, NVC practitioners may be at risk of “spiritual bypass,” using the language of empathy and connection in ways which avoid deeper accountability and awareness of social injustice. When we focus solely on individual feelings and needs without addressing the collective histories and privileges that inform them, we risk sidestepping the profound work of equity and decolonisation that really supports empathy. Therefore for NVC to fulfil its potential, it must move beyond personal growth to become a tool of collective liberation.

The Challenges of Instrumental Thinking in Conversations on Race and Gender

Nonviolent Communication, offers a counterpoint to this reductionist mindset. Rooted in compassion, empathy, and understanding, NVC seeks to move beyond the limits of instrumental rationality (left brain) by inviting individuals to connect deeply with their own needs and those of others (right brain or relational thinking). Yet, NVC has often remained focused on individual relationships, sometimes failing to address the broader systems of privilege and oppression that condition our perceptions and interactions. I have even seen a self identified 'brilliant' NVC practioner claim boredom prevented them from finishing watching 'Deconstructing Karen', a documentary that follows anti-racism educators Saira Rao and Regina Jackson, co-founders of the group Race2Dinner, as they lead white women through challenging conversations about privilege, racism, and internalized biases.

For white women, engaging in conversations on race within an NVC framework can bring up complex layers of identity. On one hand, there is often a deep, authentic pain around experiences of gender-based oppression. At the same time, there exists an often unacknowledged privilege tied to race, a privilege that can be difficult to identify and confront, especially if gender oppression has already created a profound sense of vulnerability. As Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work on intersectionality highlights, identities cannot be understood in isolation, they are interwoven with systems of power that affect us all in different ways.

Paulo Freire a key influence on Marshall's formulation of NVC, offers the idea of “conscientisation,” or critical consciousness, which challenges us to acknowledge how these structures shape our relationships in service of liberation from these structures. For white women, this might mean seeing not only the ways in which gender creates limitations but also recognising the racial privileges that accompany whiteness. When we only focus on personal dynamics without acknowledging systemic contexts, our communication can therefore fall short of true empathy.

Toward a Decolonised NVC, Embracing Pain and Curiosity

If we are to move beyond these limitations, NVC must grow to include a commitment to decolonising work, one that actively examines and dismantles the power structures that prevent us from understanding each other. David Wengrow and David Graeber remind us that social structures shape not only how we see others but also how we see ourselves. Without acknowledging these structures within our NVC practice, we risk reinforcing existing hierarchies, especially in conversations about race.

Yet, as Thomas Szasz argued in his critique of pathologisation (another founding influence on NVC), we tend to avoid uncomfortable truths by medicalising or minimising them. For many white women, discussing racial privilege can feel destabilising, evoking pain, confusion, and a desire to retreat into gender-based identity. If we, as NVC practitioners, pathologise this resistance or deny its existence, we lose a chance for growth. Instead, what if we could see this discomfort as an entry point for self-inquiry and liberation, a moment to extend compassion to ourselves and others as we face these difficult truths?

This path toward a decolonised NVC requires immense courage and vulnerability. It calls on us to examine our own pain, to acknowledge the limits of our experiences, and to invite perspectives that challenge us. In doing so, we can create spaces where the pain of gender-based oppression and the responsibility of racial privilege can coexist, allowing for a more honest, healing dialogue.

Limitations and a Call for Mutual Exploration

I acknowledge that this reflection comes from my own perspective, which has its own biases, limitations, and blind spots. My intention is not to impose a single way of practising NVC or to accuse others of “doing it wrong.” Rather, I offer these thoughts as an invitation for shared inquiry and mutual growth. I admit my own confusion and my wish to explore these questions with curiosity and openness. I accept that it is tempting for me to weaponise theory against other feminists, as I wrestle with my distress. I see your pain and your rage and your strength sisters.

In the spirit of NVC, I yearn for a community where we can hold one another’s complexities, where white women, myself included, can move past defensiveness and embrace a fuller understanding of both our pain and our privilege. I hope for a space where we can learn to see beyond instrumental thinking, to honour the humanity of everyone involved, and to engage with the world in ways that are transformative for all. I have affinity with Ren Aldridge when she states, 'the world will not survive in the hands of toxic men'.

Perhaps NVC is the next step in Adorno’s unfinished opus in service of preventing the democratic repetition of the horrors of Nazi Germany. Perhaps we are contributing to a movement from alienation to connection, from hierarchy to mutuality, and from fear to love. In embracing a decolonised NVC, we may yet find the courage to walk towards this work together.

version 0.2 (needs some work)

in these funtimes, we need some empathy for the devil!

[in the style of any NVC song, to the tune of the Rolling Stones]

---

Empathy for the Devil

(Verse 1)

Please allow me to introduce my aim (woowoo, woowoo)

here to hear you, connection is the game, (woowoo, woowoo)

I’ve seen your turmoil through history's lens (woowoo, woowoo)

I see Beneath each mask the part thats in defence (woowoo, woowoo)

(Chorus)

Woowoo, woowoo,

here to hear you,

Woowoo, woowoo,

hope you get my aim.

Pleased to meet you, hope you see my view,

`Maybe more to the story than what’s been said to you.

(Verse 2)

Just as every heart holds a story (woowoo, woowoo)

And all the lost can find grace (woowoo, woowoo)

As shadows dance, just call me a friend (woowoo, woowoo)

’Cause I’m in need of your embrace (woowoo, woowoo)

(Chorus)

Woowoo, woowoo,

here to hear you,

Woowoo, woowoo,

hope you get my aim.

(Bridge)

I’ve watched you wander through shadows of fear (woowoo, woowoo)

But lets talk honestly, lets get real clear (woowoo, woowoo)

lets drop the pretense and share what we seek (woowoo, woowoo)

your burdens become a strength, no sympathy, no defeat (woowoo, woowoo)

(Verse 3)

So come on, dear devil, let’s break down the walls (woowoo, woowoo)

Open your heart, let compassion be all (woowoo, woowoo)

In every moment, there’s a chance to mend (woowoo, woowoo)

With empathy’s light, we can all ascend (woowoo, woowoo)

Each moment choose to grow (woowoo, woowoo)

With empathy's warmth, let compassion flow (woowoo, woowoo)

In every struggle, there’s a choice to heal (woowoo, woowoo)

With empathy’s fire, let’s make it real (woowoo, woowoo)

(Chorus)

Woowoo, woowoo,

here to hear you,

Woowoo, woowoo,

hope you get my aim.

(Outro)

So when you feel lonely, don’t turn away (woowoo, woowoo)

Let’s embrace the feelings, come what may (woowoo, woowoo)

With empathy guiding, we’ll rewrite the night (woowoo, woowoo)

Turning shadows to stories of hope and light (woowoo, woowoo)

Woowoo, woowoo,

Empathy for the devil,

Woowoo, woowoo,

Let’s find the heart together.

As a trans women, I have been really struggling with my encounters, internal and external, with fixed ideas of sex and gender. I observe that everyone has an opinion, and often opinions are very strong. I say, that each claim is political. I am curious what outcome we, as a society might want?

From the moment that some 3rd party observes our genitals and fixes us within a dichotomous legal incorporation we are engaged in power over, colonial politics. Of course challenging this view is vociferously contested, of course it is hard to hear those with different views. And like the '6 or 9' dilemma, both, and neither are ‘true’, it just depends on perspective and political purpose.

So what do we mean by the word ‘sex’, especially when we claim ‘sex matters’ or “sex is real”? It depends, of course, on where we are standing and on what political outcome we wish for.

The Blind Women and The Phallus

With apologies to John Godfrey Saxe

In the land of the phallus, five women there be,

Each with her own take, on what she did see.

One woman, a scholar, of anatomy's lore,

Said, “It's a symbol of power, of strength evermore.”

Another, a lover, of sensual delight,

Whispered, “It's a key, to pleasure's secret height”.

A third, a mother, of childbirth's sacred dance,

Said, “It's a vessel, that carries life's chance.”

A fourth, a survivor, of violence and fear,

Said, “It's a reminder, of pain that I've had to bear.”

And the next, a poet, of beauty's sweet rhyme,

Said, “It's a canvas, for love's eternal time.”

A fifth, a woman, with a journey so long,

Said, “It's a symbol, that fixed gender is wrong.”

Through surgeries, hormones, and self-realization,

She claimed her true self, with newfound validation.

But the phallus, it laughed, at their feeble attempts,

To define it by parts, and not the whole expanse.

For it's all of these things, and none of them true,

A mystery, a marvel, forever renewed.

This is a long, draft post, necessarily incomplete. It was written for an autistic peer who asked, ‘What is NVC?’

When I consider how to answer this question, I believe a concise definition would be helpful. However, I hesitate to offer my interpretation because it's just my perspective, and others might have more valuable insights.

Furthermore, I've found my answers tend to be recursive. As I refine them to improve or explore different aspects, I find another point I want to clarify. Additionally, if I answer simply by saying “it's a way of communicating effectively,” other aspects of NVC might be lost.

I also believe that categorising things can make them seem static or fixed, which can stifle curiosity. For example, many people read Marshall Rosenberg's book “Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life” and believe they “get” NVC. Perhaps they've filed it under “communication tool” or something similar. To a large extent, they'd be accurate.

However, Marshall suggests that NVC has two parts. The first part in his book is perhaps only a page or two long, and the rest describes a syntax and grammar, or method of speaking and listening that supports building shared meaning. This process can be very helpful in working with conflict. It can also support states of mind that are more happy more often, as it helps us identify things we find supportive and make requests to get those needs met.

Therefore, it's tempting to say that NVC is a practice. The first part of NVC is about connection, particularly starting with the intention to connect. Otherwise, NVC becomes like a management training tool and can be ineffective or even dangerous. So, to reiterate, NVC is a practice that supports connection with oneself and others. It's truly next-level when thought of as a practice; the knowledge transforms from reading about a communication tool to a way of connecting with oneself and others.

Others I greatly respect outline part of their answer in terms of a list of NVC axioms and principles. I appreciate this approach.

Still others have explored the connections between NVC, neuroscience, and trauma. I find this work fascinating and powerful, and I can personally attest to how it has increased my capacity for choice. Because ultimately, that's what this work is about: soothing and integrating our trauma so we can be more capable of choice more of the time. Perhaps this helps you see why answering the question “what is NVC” is not trivial!

Yet others explore NVC through the lens of ancient spiritual consciousness, specifically compassion. For them, NVC is perhaps a scaffolding that fosters a way of being that helps us see the humanity in others. This connects to why Marshall chose the name “nonviolent,” even though it seems like an oxymoron. He acknowledges the difficulty with the name and says Gandhi also wrestled with it. Marshall chose the name to connect with others who practise nonviolence and to identify the link between NVC and the work of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. In that sense, NVC is also a political act, not only in self-emancipation but also in nonviolently supporting change in our encounters with domination culture. However, we tend to avoid overtly naming the last two aspects, perhaps so that NVC can better “fly under the radar.” Interestingly, even large companies have adopted NVC, not only because it helps their employees live more fulfilling lives and have less conflict in the workplace but also to better understand their customers' needs.

There are also those who identify other influences on Marshall's work, such as Thomas Szasz. His book “The Myth of Mental Illness” raises many questions about framing mental health as a disease. As an autistic person, I strongly resonate with this perspective! Additionally, others identify the influence of Paolo Freire, whose methods are built into NVC. These methods aim to raise critical consciousness in people through problem-posing pedagogy, as documented in his book “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” So, in this sense, NVC is an emancipatory practice.

Returning to the beginning, another answer I like is that NVC is a language of feelings and needs. By learning to identify feelings, we literally grow neural pathways that increase our capacity to sense how we are in each moment. Our feelings let us know when our needs are being met or unmet. The idea of needs is that all living things have needs, and there is a universal set of human needs. By naming our needs, we can better strategise how to get them met.

Some situate NVC as being about empathy, which involves being able to hear the feelings and needs of another person, as well as self-empathy, which is being able to hear our own feelings. Again, this is a skill that can be nurtured through practice. We know Marshall was taught by Carl Rogers at Stanford, and Rogers said that “empathy feels damn good.” So in this sense, NVC is best experienced.

And I hope that I've offered some insight into why filing NVC under a category of ‘communication tool’, might be a very limited strategy.

The next question might be: “Okay, how can I start this practice?” Unfortunately, I can't provide a helpful answer in a general sense, partly because it is a personal journey, and partly because it will be the subject of a future post.

NVC and Neurodiversity

Currently, I'm offering spaces on a research project that will give neurodiverse peers a taste of the experience of empathy. From running numerous pilots, I'm aware that many people didn't attend my Empathy Cafe Autscape23 because of the word “empathy.” As an autistic person myself, I've been impacted by the work of Simon Baron-Cohen, who contributed to the myth that autistic people lack empathy. This is clearly very wrong and damaging, as lacking empathy situates autistic peers as less human.

Lastly, I've also been affected by the pain that people carry around who identify as having alexithymia. They've been impacted by others who share NVC, practise NVC, or “use” NVC in a way that demands they access their feelings. While I have no doubt that some people might be unable to do so, I'm increasingly confident that the practice of NVC can support us in nurturing a capacity to identify and be more aware of our feelings more easily. Neuroscience tells us that trauma necessarily disconnects us from our feelings, which makes sense as an excellent survival tool. Thus, for many people, a large part of their NVC practice involves working with trauma. This is especially important in a culture that not only contributes to trauma but also models stoicism (think Pop Culture Detective”) or Jedi). Furthermore, our culture has largely and radically removed our communities, our tribes, which we likely evolved to be connected with. So, being in a situation of individuation removes the environment in which we evolved to support our working with trauma, grief, or even joy. Marshall Rosenberg suggests that through this practice, we might transform our capacity to feel from being akin to a bugle to being an orchestra. Therefore, might nurturing a capacity to feel be a radical political act?

So, I hope this gives you some understanding of why I find my NVC practice so valuable and why I'm keen to share it with others, especially my neurodiverse peers. I'm incredibly curious about whether it supports others in the way that it has supported me. My experiences of trauma, especially as a neurodiverse person, contributed to me showing up in very reactive ways, particularly when I was low on spoons or people didn't share my understandings. What has piqued my curiosity about NVC and neurodiversity is twofold: firstly, that I have to self-advocate less now, especially in NVC spaces. Secondly, the fact that this is true makes me curious about the apparent overlaps between NVC culture and autistic spaces – but that's a topic for another blog post. And, similarly with Marshall Rosenberg himself, there's merit in questioning whether he himself was neurodivergent.

There are few more points, and thats enough for now!

“There’s been no debate or discussion: we’re suddenly potentially on the edge of world war three, without any scrutiny.” Caroline Lucas, talking to a journalist about the RAF’s role in shooting down some of the drones involved in Iran’s attack on Israel.

You might resist this notion. It's natural to want to believe in the importance of our own thoughts. That part of us, trained to assess and prevail in debates, will vigorously argue and find reasons to refute what I'm saying. It struggles to accept that our perspective is just one of many, none inherently true.

Yet, it's evident that as individuals, with unique experiences and perceptions, we don't all see the world the same way. Our lives, shaped by distinct circumstances, contribute to this diversity. Of course you might argue, “But I know what’s right”. For example, “we all feel the warmth of our skin, that’s a fact.” True, to an extent, but not universally applicable, as those in colder climates or different latitudes experience the sun differently. Shared realities require mutual agreement. Claiming a universal truth, like feeling warmth on the skin, lacks significance without collective validation. Instead, we can collectively affirm experiences, like feeling the warmth of the sun, or predictability, such as the sunrise.

However, even predictions differ based on perspective. While one might accurately forecast the future, it's important to distinguish between pragmatic correctness and moralistic righteousness. Moral judgments lack universal consensus and necessitate shared understanding. Being ‘right’ is an illusion.

Believing in one's absolute rightness is a tendency rooted in primitive thinking. When we assert our own correctness, we inherently invalidate the perspectives of others, creating a hierarchy of beliefs. Society reinforces this competitive approach, encouraging us to engage in verbal combat to prove our superiority in determining what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. I view this as a primitive inclination, not limited to one gender but often more pronounced in men due to the influence of patriarchal norms.

As a transgender woman, I've observed contrasting dynamics between male and female interactions. Women, in my experience, are more inclined to embrace differing truths without the need for conflict. In contrast, men frequently engage in rational combat, finding it challenging to relinquish their stance.

I liken this combative mindset, this Petersonesque ‘reality’ to primitive stick fighting, a relic of our evolutionary past. I long for a societal evolution towards a more balanced and empathic way of thinking. Currently, our society prizes analytical thinking, favouring roles that involve judgement, diagnosis, or problem-solving with higher salaries. Conversely, relational thinking, centred on nurturing, listening, and empathising, is undervalued. Most importantly this explains what has contributed to our experiencing environmental collapse (and why technical ‘solutions’ won’t work!).

This imbalance underscores the urgent need for a shift towards relational thinking. We must rapidly cultivate a genuine capacity for connection and understanding in order to avoid Malthusian collapse.

Believing in absolute rightness can have catastrophic consequences for everyone.

Our minds excel at rationalising our actions, serving as the PR department for our less conscious decisions. This type of thinking permeates our daily lives, enabling us to engage in behaviours that harm our planet and future generations. It's the rationale behind driving to work despite knowing the environmental impact. It's the justification for not fully loading the dishwasher or using disposable plastic packaging, which ultimately ends up in landfills, unable to decompose safely.

This mindset extends to our work, sometimes leading us to compromise on ethical standards. It facilitates the arms trade, with dealers and politicians alike justifying their involvement. It fuels violence and discrimination, dehumanizing others and justifying egregious acts. It enabled the enslavement of others, and enables us still to justify the legacies of colonialism. It is the same thinking that enabled the holocaust. It's the same thinking that could rationalize the unthinkable, such as nuclear war.

This type of thinking allows us to distance ourselves from the consequences of our actions, enabling us to perpetuate harm without fully acknowledging its impact. There is an urgent need to recognise the limitations of the enlightenment, and to cultivate our human capacities to feel, in order to have compassion for each other.

Trying to justify my use of ChatGPT, I thought it would be funny to use it to problematise itself. Previous attempts to get it to tell me about the ethical issues, such as PTSD in its moderators, or whether using source code was not Open Source was unethical failed due to heavy moderation of such topics. In other words ChatGPT would not tell me anything bad about its inception or the corporate practices of its creator. Here are the results of a different attempt, the references came to me via Mastodon.

In our digital age, if we look beneath the shiny veneer of our digital lives, we find ourselves navigating a complex online landscape that shape how we communicate, work, and interact with the world. Among these, there exists platforms that stand out for unparalleled utility, effectiveness, and transformative impact. Unfortunately, behind the seductive facade of innovation and convenience lie the normative troubling patterns of ethical practices that are hard to ignore. Corporate social media(CSM) reflects a pattern that privileges capitalistic paradigms that empower authority and reduce choice through agglomeration and reducing privacy. Today, CSM is ubiquitous and choosing not to engage with it is almost impossible.

Now the new digital shiny is 'AI' and even the term 'AI' is both wrong and anthropocentric. As usual profit is found in externalising the costs of human and environmental suffering and 'AI' is amplifying this pattern.

Corporate 'AI'(CAI), while a beacon of productivity and connectivity, is marred by its involvement in exploitative employment practices, intellectual theft, reliance on proprietary software and data harvesting, and has a shockingly large carbon cost. The CAI practices of paying low wages to moderators, particularly in African countries, not only perpetuate economic inequality but also contribute to trauma of those most vulnerable. This is a pattern which many view as a modern iteration of the pattern of western colonialism and slavery. Additionally, its engagement in intellectual theft undermines the principles of fairness, innovation, and ethical competition, in other words something of an abuse of the sharing and gift economy that is embodied by the internet. Furthermore, its reliance on proprietary software and data harvesting raises concerns about privacy, autonomy, and consent, while its substantial carbon footprint exacerbates environmental degradation and climate change.

Yet, despite these ethical transgressions, the undeniable truth remains: 'AI' is one of the most useful, supportive, and effective tools ever built by humans. It has revolutionized how we collaborate, communicate, and access information, empowering individuals and communities to achieve unprecedented levels of learning, productivity and connectivity. Its extensive features and functionalities have streamlined workflows, facilitated global cooperation, and democratized access to knowledge and resources. Similarly to CSM, it has become an indispensable part of our digital lives, driving innovation, economic growth, and social progress despite its deeply troubling foundations and implications for our future.

When considering whether to continue using this online service, we are faced with a profound tension between its undeniable benefits and its troubling ethical implications. On one hand, using CAI risks justifying the human suffering, environmental harm, and ethical compromises that underlie its operation. On the other hand, we cannot deny the tangible benefits it offers to millions of users worldwide, nor the inevitable uptake, evolutionary quickening and societal change that it embodies.

As humans, lets approach this dilemma with compassion, curiosity, and creativity. Acknowledging the complex interplay of competing interests and values at stake, while also recognizing our capacity to effect change and shape the future of the digital landscape through our choices and actions. Rather than succumbing to despair, resignation or denial, lets harness our collective ingenuity and imagination to envision and create alternatives that prioritize ethical integrity, environmental sustainability, and social justice. Lets build towards a digital future worthy of our children.

We invite curiosity and creativity in both recognizing the opportunity of CAI and striving to create something less awful – something that better embody the principles of fairness, transparency, and respect for human dignity. Whether through advocating for ethical business practices, supporting alternative platforms that prioritize ethical values, or actively participating in efforts to reduce our digital carbon footprint, we have the capacity to shape a future that is both innovative and ethical.

The choice to continue using this online service is not simple, but rather a nuanced exploration of competing values and interests. By approaching this dilemma with compassion, curiosity, and creativity, perhaps we can better navigate the complexities of the digital age whilst at the same time striving to create a more just, equitable, and sustainable future for all.

ChatGPT(3.5) prompt: “please write a deliberation about using an online service that has disgusting employment practises (Paying extremely low wages to africans and contributing to their ill health and trauma), and has other ethical problems with intellectual theft and is also based on proprietary software and data harvesting and also has a very large carbon cost BUT on the other side is one of the most useful, supportive and effective tools ever built by humans. invite curiousity and creativity in both having compassion for using the tool whilst also prioritising creating something less awful “

Heavily edited the resulting response, using an NVC lens.

References:

OpenAI used outsourced Kenyan workers earning less than $2 per hour to make ChatGPT less toxic, my investigation found:

https://mastodon.social/@perrigo/109710236957591876

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/the-hidden-workforce-that-helped-filter-violence-and-abuse-out-of-chatgpt/ffc2427f-bdd8-47b7-9a4b-27e7267cf413

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-computer-scientist-breaks-down-generative-ais-hefty-carbon-footprint/

https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-copyright-law/

Today I woke up.

Today I woke up, with gratitude.

And I thought of you,

thank you

Thank you for all that you are

Thank you for all that you brought me.

-

Grinning,

Cosmic joker, the key revealed,

just beyond the curtain of my daze,

gasp – always there!

-

Woke,

in this moment,

all that is behind me,

gratitude,

all that is with me,

gratitude,

and starting from now,

awoke

at every moment

humbly

inviting

gratitude.

-

A playful gift,

an inviting,

magical future,

change.

thank you.

(after Marshall Rosenberg solstice 23.)

From now on, I choose to dream my own dreams so that I can fully taste the mystical excitement of being human.

From now on, I choose to empathically connect so that I can fully respect the unique and holy experience to be found in every moment.

From now on, I choose to have my actions flow from connection and to direct my attention where it supports this flow.

From now on, I choose to be aware of unchosen thoughts within me, and to develop more choice in each moment.

From now on, I choose to openly reveal what is alive within me, even though others may not appreciate the gift.

From now on, when wearing a title of authority, I choose to be aware that reaching frontiers before others never justifies punitive means to influence them to join me.

From now on, I choose to remember that the failure of our needs to be fulfilled results from insufficient dialogue and creativity rather than scarcity.

From now on, I choose to accompany what I carry of the worlds trauma in love.

~em~

10 Minute Read.

As an early adopter of digital things I was delighted to support Signal since its early days. I no longer think it is a viable platform, this is my departure eulogy.

I first came across Signal just after being badly stung by the Telegram snake oil fiasco. I was excited by Telegram and promoted it to my peers and friends who also care about the future of digital security. Then I found myself ashamed of having ‘called it’ before having done sufficient due diligence because shortly after my recommendation came a security analysis that exposed the weakness of Telegram encryption.

This led to me being much more cautious about Signal. But when Edward Snowden famously offered his testimony of assurance, I felt more willing to once again invite my peers to use something that might, like him, help us navigate to a future that is less based on surveillance capitalism and included Signal in my ‘eat my own dogfood’ recommended best practise.

Aside from a few glitches over the years Signal has provided me and my peers a great service. I love so much about it that it is almost perfect. I love the apps and where I can install them. I love that they take donations and that they are constantly developing features. I respect the passion and dedication of its founder, who shares that they once sat in the rain supporting the network.

But dedication and passion can only go so far, we get old and things change, even the most benevolent dictator has to entrust their opus at some stage to the next leader, who will have their own visions and goals. There are other issues with Signal too. Their server code is proprietary, which means I can’t run a server or inspect the code. They are centralised, which means that users must trust the company to stay in business and keep all its infrastructure working. And lastly Signal, as yet, still requires a phone number, with all the impact on privacy that entails.

A few indicators let me know that Signal is dying. Although almost all of my older security digital peers still use it, over the last six months many, perhaps most of my activist and not activist friends have stopped using it. I have been curious why, and there have been a range of reasons, from ‘my old phone no longer supports it’, through to ‘Telegram is more flexible’ to the usual, ‘all my contacts are on Whatsapp’.

There are only so many glitches and direction changes that users will take before they start to leave. Signal originally handled both SMS and its own encrypted messages, and for a while this was great. It was great for months until glitches started and occasionally and without any alerts I missed some important SMS’s – not fun. I loved that it did two sorts of messages because it is so much more convenient having one less app! But a change of direction to focus on privacy led to it no longer supporting SMS.

In a similar fashion to Telegram I was an early adopter of Whatsapp. Like many others I was cautious to use it to start and I wondered if it was trustworthy. As the best app by far in the game at the time, it seemed too good to be true. But when in 2009 the founders blogged, ‘We have not, we do not and we will not ever sell your personal information to anyone. Period. End of story’, my trust was sufficiently assured and I took to Whatsapp with verve. At least four years before it became mainstream I was happily using its pioneering cross platform multimedia no cost calling with delight. I put aside my preference for libre licencing because nothing else came close to its functionality and ease. Even an officer in the military shared with me how they were shocked to find it being used, albeit unofficially, on exercise to share prescient intelligence in the field! Now almost everyone uses it, even my mother!

But then in 2014 Mark Zuckerberg bought Whatsapp and my heart sank and I uninstalled. The amount of money alone should have been a bright red warning light to everyone, in my not so humble opinion. Of course the assurances that users privacy would be maintained were paper thin, so it was just a question of time before Facebook would rip into the rich information contained in platform and privacy would once again become an illusion for the user product. To be honest I was surprised that it took so long for Meta to change the terms and conditions and start their assimilation. I guess that they wanted to wait till they were absolutely dominant in the market and that most had forgotten, or didn’t prioritise privacy in the first place, the assurances made by the Whatsapp founders and Meta.

And now I have a sense that it is time for me to mourn and depreciate my use of Signal and reinvest energy on building something better. I have moved back to the joy of IRC, and like a familiar old pair of well worn slippers, its a bit ragged but familiar and very comfy. I do this despite the sense that it is a backwards step, the work to make it less clunky and limitations of using IRC. Yet IRC remains one of the few places where it is possible to meet my needs for the assurances I enjoy.

I will of course checkout XMPP yet again, but I know of few communities that use it.

I still don’t fully trust Telegram, largely for similar reasons to the reasons that I outlined for Signal. They claim ‘trust us’, it is proprietary and centralised, and it really stung to have got it ‘wrong’ in the past. Now Telegram is used by people who care about security, and, one would assume, be impacted by any lack of security, for instance I know people who buy illicit substances using it. Another such example is the range and types of activists using it even in the more repressive societies. But the main change I notice is an uptake in ‘normal’ (non techie friends) on Telegram. It offers the huge assurance of not needing a phone number, and it is now used by not only my more conspiracy/’right wing’ peers. Also I observe that it is designed with automation/botting in mind, so with the exception that I want to minimise my investment of energy in things that do not contribute to a libre future, Telegram is appealing.

For a while I ran a Matrix server, before the balance of lack of peer uptake and some personal politics contributed to me to take a break. As a user Matrix is a good match, with the single exception of its paradigm of preserving history. I want to be in a digital space where people have the freedom to be vulnerable with affect or sensitive information or just change their mind! But this is the only problem with it, on almost every other measure Matrix is awesome and over the last year I built some wonderful things with it. Most wonderfully, I built a room with both Signal and Whatsapp users in it! And in many senses it is achieving its aim of being the one app from which a user can connect to many services, e.g. Beeper. I so love choice and freedom, and my matrix server worked for me for over a year, where I was able to use less apps because I connected my Matrix to most other services. At one point I even had a room with its own email account!

I am looking forward to when Matrix implements its voice call plans! Whether or not I will build another Matrix server in the next year, I will keep exploring and deploying services that might contribute in some way towards a future founded on a digital life that better meets needs than what we have now. Till we chat again,

yours with hope and love,

~em~