So, I just deleted my post about Jackie Leung running for State Representative.
I think the reasons for my deletion matter, as an aspect of transparency, as admitting an error, and as food for thought about the Homeless Coalition’s desired position for the future.
Even with the disclaimer that I was sharing my own views and experiences, and NOT speaking on behalf of the Homeless Coalition, it’s easy for that distinction to be missed, and sharing that flavor of information …
Victor Reppeto I am disappointed. I thought advocating for Leung was wholly appropriate since she is more likely to help us seek healthy solutions for the homeless. Recommendation of candidates may not be specifically recommended but neither is it prohibited. I value liberty tremendously. I would like to see freedom of expression get more cred on this forum. This bent toward censorship is concerning.
Lynelle Wilcox For the record, i deleted the post on my own volition.
Advocating on homeless *issues* seems appropriate here, yet even in that, some advocates may differ about *how* to advocate effectively.
Similar to my history with disability advocacy, where some disability advocates prefer a collaborative style, and others prefer a radical style, and others differ about where the line might be to shift from collaborative to a radical style or back again. Some style preferences are based on philosophy; other preferences are often based on individuals’ predictions about what approach may be more effective at any given time. Similar differences are echoed in homeless advocacy discussions sometimes – here and elsewhere. And some of those discussions end up being ineffective loops and “more than” what this page is for.
Advocating here for any particular *candidate* would understandably first require a discussion and decision by the Homeless Coalition about whether they want to officially or even unofficially “endorse” any candidates, either outright, or even by implication.
Since that conversation has not happened, my advocacy here for a candidate is premature and inappropriate.
(If I had stuck only with facts, then I believe that would be acceptable educational sharing. Yet I definitely went further than that. That’s my bad, on me; not reflective of overbearing censorship.)Careylynn Miller Patterson deleted her own comment here before I could get it copied to this forum.It something about “arguing is bad.” As well as affirming L Wilcox choice to delete her rcommendation for J Leung.
Victor Reppeto Careylynn Miller Patterson It is very confusing trying to figure out what it is okay to say what it is not okay to say on this forum. From an academic perspective debate is one of the most powerful tools we have for effective policy development. I refer toa book called Joining Together 1th edition. That is what this group does. Discuss the options and decide which of them we want to put resources into. At least that used to be true. Debate is healthy when it is done right. No name calling, everyone has right to be heard, no telling anyone to shut up. Limit negative feedback to the proposal or idea and do not direct it at the person. Switch places and argue for the other side. It is very important to pursue emotional self regulation i order to be able to do this. I always thought this was part of growing up but it just is not part of the culture in Oregon. Even legislators cannot do it and it is their job, Once again the legislature is at a standstill.