I thought on my way to work:
When a perception I have is put into words it is my responsibility to analyze my inner dialogue and hold it up against what else I know before I voice it . However, I am a biological creature and do not have a view of everything and can only know what my limited view has shown me. I embrace this attitude of humility because although I have given much time and thought to the question – why our world is, like it is, I cannot presume to know, without deeper questioning the extent of another experience. Or the extent of the ancestral histories that add weight to the experience. I see a lot of deeper histories left out of dialogues, often in order to add gravity to a particular experience. So with that in mind I think the real solution is not to control the narrative by powerful policy but to share on a big scale a searching and open dialogue. It is easy to find reasons to discount another voice, it is much harder to find love and allow another to explore the depth of their experience. Real, honest thoughts are fragile, tenuous and easily destroyed, and destroying a heart causes anger and frustration in that heart. Some say anger and hate is inevitable because we are emotional creatures, but how do we choose what perception gets all the emotional passion? It is part of responsibility to take a deeper look at what is hurting a fellow man, not searching for reasons to hate and create emotions too hard to quench with love.