(Meditative) Online Community Agreement: Questions and Comments

Here's how AI summarized my talk:

Reflections on a set of online community agreements for an upcoming meditation retreat, aiming to comment with curiosity rather than judgment. Appreciation for the retreat’s generosity and the positive intentions—creating a safe, brave, supportive space—but I also feel some of the guidelines may be overly prescriptive, politically loaded, or potentially constraining natural interaction.

Key themes in their reflections:

Sacred & Brave Space – Agreement values safety, bravery, intimacy, trust, and transformative love. The speaker questions how subjective perceptions (e.g., ridicule, mirroring) are handled and whether positivity and traditional Buddhist framing should be more explicitly included alongside modern social-justice language.

Power, Privilege, Trauma – Recognizing the importance of acknowledging different backgrounds but questions presuming everyone is currently oppressed or defined by trauma, and whether emphasis should balance hardship with inherent goodness.

Conflict & Responsibility – Supports holding safe conflict tenderly but notes situations may require boundaries rather than tenderness. On intent vs. impact, they stress intentions are fully one’s responsibility, but impact is shared with others, not fully controllable.

Arrival & Confidentiality – Straightforward points on timeliness and privacy.
Identity & Pronouns – Respects pronoun use but raises concerns about language policing, self-censorship, and whether strict adherence can increase identity-clinging or division. Advocates focusing on respectful intent over rigid forms.

Dialogue over Debate – Values deep listening and openness to change but warns that harmful or agenda-driven ideas could slip in under neutrality.
Care, Consent, & Speaking from “I” – Supports consent and speaking from personal experience, but wonders about exceptions, usefulness of “we,” and whether rules may constrain natural speech.

Both/And Language – Substituting “and” for “but” may avoid binary thinking but feels like enforced language modification; questions whether “but” can also honor multiple realities.

Blame/Shame – Recognizes need to avoid toxic blame/shame but also sees value in “skillful shame” for restraining harmful acts; warns against reinforcing unhelpful emotional outbursts.

Taking/Making Space – Encourages balancing speaking and listening, but dynamics may be more nuanced than simply “talk less” or “talk more.”