There’s an experiment on the internet that’s interesting. “The Enemies Project helps ‘enemies’ discover the human being in each other.” What happened when the Second Amendment was in the spotlight?
One of the things I feel we do at Bearing Arms — besides providing news and commentary — is highlight the human elements that are sewn into the fiber of America and what that means looking through the lens of the Second Amendment. The Enemies Project does something we, I dare say, strive to do, and that’s provoke thought and perhaps conversation. “Can Empathy Stop the Bleed?” brought a “gun rights advocate” and a “gun safety advocate” together and made them talk to each other.
I was caught up in doom scrolling on YouTube and stumbled upon the “Can Empathy Stop the Bleed?” episode. I’ve never seen this YouTube channel, but the YouTube algorithm accurately thought I’d like to see this content. I clicked on the thumbnail because I recognized one of the women depicted in the image and the words “Across the Gun Divide” were stamped at the top. The episode was posted on November 1 and was filmed in September.
What’s the Enemies Project all about?
“We live in a time of deep political hostility. Each side believes the other is not just wrong—but dangerous,” the Enemies Project states on their webpage. “This hostility has become a way of life. And it is not an accident. There is a structure to our estrangement. A system. A perfected business model. A path to control.”
Because of that hostility, the Enemies Project brings people together. They say they bring these “enemies” together, not to have a debate, but “to come face-to-face.” The Project is not looking to foster arguments or have people compromise on their values, “but to reclaim something deeper: the capacity to recognize each other as fellow citizens, fellow humans, insightful, valuable, real.”
The two participants were Dakota and Hollye. “Dakota is a fierce gun rights advocate, a Second Amendment supporter,” host Larry Rosen said. “Hollye is a fierce gun safety supporter.”
The episode opened up with the women providing their points of a view via a traditional rhetorical setting. Dakota and Hollye stated their points and engaged in active back-and-forth debate. This exercise was a necessary primer.
After the primer, the producers state on screen that the debate portion of the conversation was important for several reasons. First, how debate and arguing “produces no positive result.” Second, it established the authenticity of participants; the women are “legitimate representatives of their side of the audience …”
During the back and forth, the guttural reactions of Hollye devolved her retorts. She’d fire back by saying that Dakota is well coached, and has rehearsed, and memorized her statistics — as if that was a bad thing. She also tried to debunk legitimate sources of data and studies because “her side” has said over and again they’re wrong.
“I don’t know where what you’re talking about with you know where you’re getting your data from, but is it John Lott?” Hollye fired at Dakota at one point. “I say that you are very well prepared with your talking points. However, look at our country. What you. I go to Japan all the time. There are no mass shootings there.”
In a moment of frustration towards the end of the confrontational portion, Hollye resorted to insult. “Bless your heart,” she said. “You are very well trained with your talking points.” Hollye further said that she felt that Dakota is “very coached [and] influenced,” and that it makes her sad.
It was clear that Hollye folded in the argument and Dakota “won.” There’s no doubt that if this were a conventional debate, there’d be a clear winner. But what did that gain them collectively?
Rosen asked the pair: “I want to ask you, are you convinced by the other person?” They both said “no.”
The Enemies Project then took the pair and made them have more discussions. Actually get to know another. Through those exercises, the hope was to show the humanity of the other person they’re not in agreement with.
“Let me say that when the other side is a threat, which clearly, from your perspective, they are, empathy inside of us shuts down,” Rosen said between segments. “It’s self-protective when you think someone is a threat to not feel what they’re feeling, because otherwise you capitulate, and if you can’t feel what they’re feeling, you have no idea, actually, what they’re thinking.”
The hour-long video included some roleplaying and reflection. Where did the two end up when they came out the other side? Were minds changed? Rosen said that something felt off to him by the end of the episode. Actually, the result was a bit different from experiences he’s had with past participants, he observed.
This is a very interesting project and Rosen tackles other societal conflicts in other videos in the series. Currently there are nine episodes listed on their homepage and YouTube channel.
“Can Empathy Stop the Bleed?” raised compelling arguments and there were equally compelling revelations about how the pro-Second Amendment side is viewed/treated. Is this worth the investment in watching? I’d say yes. But understand that the point of the exercise was not to win, but rather to understand. The post-interview retrospective by Rosen almost illustrates that this issue is indeed special. There are some bright lines when it comes to the Second Amendment, perhaps not in the ways we’d think (or are they?).
Check out the full episode HERE and sound off in the comments.
Editor’s Note: Time is running out for the Bearing Arms VIP’s Black Friday sale!
Now through Monday evening, 11:59 PM ET, receive 60% OFF an annual VIP, VIP Gold, or VIP Platinum membership with promo code FIGHT. And right now, if you join Bearing Arms VIP Platinum, you will be entered for a chance to win one of five Lifetime Platinum memberships!
Read the full article here
